Whoever buys cleaning buys responsibility with it. The question of whether a company is liable for its cleaning contractor's wage and social-security obligations usually surfaces only when an offer looks suspiciously cheap — which is exactly when it is least convenient. This article sets out the legal position for clients in Germany: what the statute actually says, where case law has drawn the boundaries of liability, which risks exist beyond the guarantee liability itself, and which documents protect you. It does not replace legal advice — it makes sure you ask the right questions of your provider and your lawyer. How a cleanly calculated price differs from a risky one is shown in our analysis of office cleaning costs; what a serious quote should disclose and how a professional maintenance cleaning service is organised is set out on those pages.
The legal core: guarantee liability for the minimum wage
The heart of the matter sits in two provisions. Section 13 of the German Minimum Wage Act (MiLoG) declares Section 14 of the Posted Workers Act (AEntG) applicable to the statutory minimum wage. Under it, a business that commissions another business with works or services is liable for that contractor's obligation to pay the minimum remuneration like a guarantor who has waived the defence of prior recourse. Translated: the contractor's employees could claim their unpaid minimum wage directly from the client, without first suing their own employer — and the claim runs on the net wage.
For commercial cleaning there is an additional layer: the industry has collective agreements declared generally binding under the AEntG. The branch minimum wages — not just the statutory minimum — are therefore mandatory law for every business providing cleaning services, and the guarantee liability of Section 14 AEntG extends to them. On paper this is a far-reaching liability, and it applies regardless of fault: whether the client knew about the underpayment is irrelevant to the civil guarantee.
What the courts made of it: the Federal Labour Court's boundary
The decisive limitation comes from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court). Under its settled case law, the term "business" in Section 14 AEntG is to be read narrowly: it means the general contractor who passes on a contractual duty of its own to subcontractors — not every company that buys services for its own operations. A bank, a law firm or a manufacturer commissioning the cleaning of its own premises is not passing on a market obligation but covering its own needs; under this case law, the guarantee liability of Section 14 AEntG does not in principle reach it.
The liability chain becomes practically relevant where cleaning is part of what you yourself owe. Three typical constellations: a facility-management company that owes a client full building services and subcontracts the cleaning is liable for those subcontractors' wage obligations. A property management firm must look carefully at what it owes contractually — does it merely administer, or has it undertaken towards the owners to provide the cleaning? And a cleaning company itself that passes orders to subcontractors stands behind their wages: which is why the question of whether your provider works with its own staff or builds chains is not a matter of style but of liability — if not yours, then theirs.
The guarantee liability does not reach everyone who buys cleaning. But whoever wants to rule it out reliably must know what they owe under their own contracts — and to whom their provider actually leaves the work.
Important: this boundary relieves the classic own-use client of the civil guarantee. It does not make provider selection risk-free, because the remaining risks do not attach to Section 14 AEntG.
The risks beyond the guarantee
Illicit work and illegal employment. The Undeclared Work Act (SchwarzArbG) sanctions not only the provider but also a client who has services performed on a significant scale while knowing — or negligently not knowing — that the provider is violating its social-security or tax obligations. Customs enforcement (Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit) audits commercial cleaning as a focus industry, and proceedings then reach the commissioning company and its management as well.
Bogus self-employment. If the cheap provider works with "self-employed" cleaners who are in fact integrated into your routines and bound by instructions, reclassification into employment looms — with back-payment claims for contributions in which, depending on the facts, the client can also be drawn into responsibility. Contracts that read as works contracts on paper and are lived as labour leasing on site are the classic gateway.
Participation via Section 266a of the Criminal Code and tax law. Anyone who actively participates in arrangements that withhold social-security contributions risks criminal complicity. That does not describe the good-faith buyer — but it does describe accepting an offer that visibly only works through underpayment, and accommodating it with obliging invoices.
Reputation and operational risk. Independent of any statute: your provider works at night in your premises, with keys and alarm codes, next to client files and patient data. A business that cuts corners with its own people tends to cut corners in selection, supervision and control too — a risk you cannot negotiate away, only audit away.
What a suspiciously cheap offer has to do with all this
The bridge between price and liability is the calculation. Since January 2026 the collectively agreed minimum wage in wage group 1 stands at €15.00 per hour; with employer contributions and payroll on-costs, one working hour costs the business over €19 — realistically €26 to €34 once materials, travel, supervision and administration are included. A charge-out rate noticeably below that means somebody is paying the difference: either the cleaner, through unpaid overtime or fictional productivity figures, or the social-security funds — or, in the end, you, via one of the routes described above.
Which is why the most important compliance measure in buying cleaning is not legal but commercial: ask to see the calculation. Hours, productivity, wage group. A provider who calculates cleanly shows it gladly — transparency costs them nothing. What a traceable calculation looks like is worked through with examples in our price article.
The audit list: how clients protect themselves
There is no complete safety, but a documented selection process reduces every one of the risks above considerably — and proves, if it ever matters, that you selected with care. Your provider should be able to present these documents at contract signature and regularly thereafter:
| Document | What it proves | Interval |
|---|---|---|
| Clearance certificate from the health insurers / collection agencies | Social-security contributions are being paid | half-yearly |
| Clearance certificate from the tax office | Tax obligations are being met | yearly |
| Certificate from the employers' liability association (BG BAU) | Accident insurance in place, contributions paid | yearly |
| Business liability policy incl. key-loss cover | Damage in your building is insured | yearly |
| Trade-register / craft-roll entry | The business exists and may perform | once |
| Declaration on own staff and subcontractors | No uncontrolled subcontracting chain | contractual |
Add three clauses to the contract: an assurance that collectively agreed minimum wages are paid and will be evidenced on request; a consent requirement for the use of subcontractors; and an extraordinary termination right for violations. Serious providers sign without hesitating — hesitation is itself an audit finding.
Direct employment as the structural answer
All the risks described share one root: opacity about who actually works in your building and on what terms. The structurally cleanest exclusion is a provider that works exclusively with its own staff in registered employment and can prove it — then there is no chain in which a guarantee liability could arise, and the question about employment arrangements has a short, verifiable answer. Ask for it concretely during selection; the answer belongs in writing in the contract. What else to watch for when switching providers is covered separately as a checklist.
A closing note on scope: this article describes the legal position for commercial cleaning in Germany as it stands in 2026 and replaces no case-specific advice. If your procurement involves larger volumes or pass-through constellations, have the contract design reviewed by counsel — measured against any single one of the scenarios above, the cost of that review is a rounding error, and you will already have the audit-list documents to hand.