Electrician (Journeyman) — Job Description & Salary in Germany

A concrete account of the violation (for example a missing isolation, an incorrectly rated fuse, non-compliant wiring) and their own response: stopped the work, documented the violation, reported it to the relevant party. Bonus: the candidate didn't fix it themselves but escalated it correctly. Someone who says they just carried on because of time pressure shows a safety gap that isn't acceptable in this role.

Systematic fault-finding rather than guesswork: symptoms recorded, measurements taken, hypotheses tested in order, rather than swapping parts at random. Bonus: the candidate mentions what they documented so the next job on that system goes faster. Someone who only states the end result without describing how they got there may have solved the task with outside help.

Plain language with no jargon, an honest assessment of urgency and cost, no exaggeration to justify a bigger job. Bonus: the candidate offered the customer options rather than a single solution. Someone who describes just explaining the invoice has underestimated the communication side of the role.

Stops work rather than continuing on the basis of the wrong documentation, checks the system themselves with a measuring device, documents the finding, and brings in site management or the responsible Elektrofachkraft if there's any uncertainty before continuing. Someone who blindly trusts the documentation or improvises on their own risks a dangerous mistake.

A clear, matter-of-fact refusal citing the legal and standards-based obligation, combined with a constructive alternative (for example an earlier inspection slot, a partial sign-off). Someone who simply agrees because the instruction came from above shows a safety gap that, if something goes wrong, falls back on the person who was hired, in liability terms.

Recognises the limit of their own and the company's authorisation under § 13 NAV, stops work on that part of the job, and escalates to site management rather than carrying on independently or informally handing the work to a colleague who happens to be registered. Someone who doesn't know or ignores this boundary puts the company in a real liability position.

A clear distinction: the initial inspection happens before a new or modified system is first put into service, while the recurring inspection covers ongoing operation of existing systems and catches faults that only develop through wear, alterations, or changed use. Bonus: the candidate notes that the actual inspection interval follows from the risk assessment, but in practice is often every four years. Someone who confuses or conflates the two standards hasn't internalised the practical inspection obligation.

Names the three elements — technical training, knowledge and experience — which together give the ability to independently recognise and avoid hazards when working on electrical systems. Bonus: the candidate recognises that a freshly passed exam without practical experience doesn't automatically establish this status yet, and needs a supervised induction period. Someone who equates the journeyman's certificate with Elektrofachkraft status underestimates the practical side of the requirement.

Checks the existing connection capacity and protection, the condition of the fuse box, whether a separate circuit with the right residual-current protection (Type B, depending on charging power) is needed, and whether the grid connection capacity requires notifying or getting approval from the grid operator. Someone who goes straight to a flat quote without checking the existing installation is pricing past the real risk.

Structured narrowing-down rather than swapping parts on a hunch: reconstructing the load at the time it tripped, identifying the affected consumers, checking insulation resistance and connections, comparing the pattern across several incidents (time of day, weather, usage). Bonus: the candidate explicitly notes that intermittent faults are harder to pin down than constant ones and justify more observation time before replacing parts. Someone who replaces a part on their first suspicion risks recurring failures without ever finding the real cause.

A clear refusal to bypass it, with a technical justification (the safety function, the liability risk), combined with a realistic estimate of how soon a proper repair is possible and an alternative for the interim (partial shutdown, a temporary but standards-compliant fix). Someone who goes along with the request to avoid losing the job shows a sense of priorities that isn't acceptable in this role.

A systematic start rather than jumping straight into individual jobs: taking stock of the distribution boards, cross-checking against any existing plans, prioritising visible defects by safety relevance, and checking with site management before commissioning necessary follow-up work. Bonus: the candidate suggests updating the documentation as they go, rather than leaving the problem for the next visit.

A clear, matter-of-fact refusal grounded in real consequences (fire risk, electric shock, liability), not just a lip-service answer. Bonus: the candidate gives a concrete example of sticking to correct practice despite time pressure. Someone who answers with a general platitude and no example hasn't really answered the question.

Concrete, actively used sources (guild training courses, manufacturer training, trade publications, exchanges with colleagues) rather than a vague answer. Bonus: the candidate names a specific standards or technology change from recent years and how they adjusted their own practice as a result. Someone who says they look things up 'as needed,' without naming a source, often isn't really keeping up in practice.

A nuanced position rather than blanket approval or rejection: recognises that genuine supervision by an Elektrofachkraft is permitted within narrow limits, but is often used as cover for too little actual supervision. Bonus: the candidate names concrete boundaries (which tasks should never happen without a qualified professional, which are acceptable with direct supervision). Someone who dismisses the issue entirely shows a level of safety awareness that's too weak for this role.