The recent Supreme Court ruling of 15 April 2026, No. 372/2026, clarifies the legal position regarding how the burden of proof operates in cases where the company has not implemented a system for recording working hours and employees claim to have worked overtime. At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as expert employment lawyers, we proceed to analyse this case in detail.
In this particular case, an employee working in a butcher’s shop in Guadalajara who had been dismissed claimed overtime worked during the term of the employment relationship and further alleged that the company did not properly record working hours.
The company admitted that there had been a slight excess of working hours amounting to around eighty hours of overtime per year and acknowledged a debt owed to the employee.
Now, regarding the dispute in question, in the first instance, Guadalajara Labour Court No. 2 partially upheld the employee’s claim, in that, on the one hand, it recognised the overtime hours admitted by the company (amounting to 1,000 euros), but on the other hand, did not consider all the overtime hours the worker claimed to have worked – which were far more than those admitted by the company – to have been effectively proven.
In summary, the trial judge considered that:
- the absence of a working hours record does not necessarily and automatically, in and of itself, imply recognition of the overtime claimed and allegedly worked by the employee,
- for a strong presumption to be established, the employee must provide solid evidence of the overtime claimed.
However, in response to the lower court’s judgment, the claimant appealed to the High Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha, which ruled similarly, and subsequently to the Supreme Court, arguing that the failure to keep a record of working hours automatically reverses the burden of proof in claims for overtime, without the need for the worker to provide prior evidence.
On behalf of Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as expert employment lawyers, and given our experience in cases such as this, we have analysed the Supreme Court’s judgment, given its importance.
The High Court distinguishes between two different scenarios when assessing and resolving the relevant circumstances. These scenarios are as follows:
- Where a fixed or pre-determined working schedule applies to the employment relationship:
This is common in sectors such as offices and industries with stable shifts, etc., where the schedule is regular, stable and known to both parties.
In this scenario, the employee does not have to prove the entire working day, only the hours worked in excess of that pre-set schedule.
Regarding what is considered possible evidence of overtime, for example: till receipts showing the time and the shop assistant’s name, supplier delivery notes, WhatsApp messages, emails, witnesses not linked to the company, geolocation, etc. Detailed hour-by-hour proof is not required, but more than just the worker’s statement is needed.
- Absence of a regular or stable working schedule:
The approach differs in cases where the employment relationship is subject to irregular, unpredictable and unstable working hours.
In these cases, and given that there is no regular, fixed and stable schedule, the full working hours must be proven, and not merely the hours worked in excess of a previously known working day. Specifically, and in accordance with the Supreme Court’s criteria, it is the employer who must prove the hours worked by means of a time record.
Furthermore, if the employer fails to produce a time record or provide other sufficient evidence of the hours actually worked, the court must accept the hours claimed by the employee as true, without the need for prior evidence.
Therefore, in summary, the judgment under consideration:
- Treats the time record as substantial evidence,
- Requires a distinction to be made between jobs with stable and predictable hours and those with irregular hours,
- Concludes that failing to keep a time record is detrimental to the company, although it does not entirely eliminate the need for employees to provide reasonable evidence that they are working overtime, in cases where their working hours are stable and known.
Below is a diagram for better understanding.
| Scenario | Characteristics of working hours | Burden of proof | What the employee must prove | What the employer must prove | Comments / Means of proof |
| Fixed or pre-set working hours | Regular, stable and known working hours (offices, fixed shifts, etc.) | Primarily the employee (regarding overtime) | Only overtime in excess of the pre-set hours | Not particularly relevant if the working hours are clear | Evidence: receipts, delivery notes, WhatsApp messages, emails, external witnesses, geolocation. Hour-by-hour evidence is not required |
| No regular or stable working hours | Irregular, unpredictable and unstable working hours | The burden of proof shifts to the employer | The employee must claim the full working day performed | The employee must prove the working hours through a time record | If the employee fails to provide a time record or sufficient evidence, the court may accept the working hours claimed by the employee |
At Belzuz Abogados, S.L.P., as employment law experts, we will continue to monitor the effects and similar rulings that may arise in relation to the recording of working hours and overtime.