Proving overtime work: what employers and employees should keep

Employees sought, among other relief, payment for work they said exceeded normal hours. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and the employer’s internal overtime procedures. It did not treat signatures in an access or control register as automatically proving all hours claimed as paid overtime.

Presence at the workplace, the performance of work and the authorization of overtime may be different factual questions. Timesheets, instructions, electronic records, work products and messages should be considered together rather than in isolation.

Adopt transparent recording and approval processes consistent with labour law. Ensure employees can understand the rules, preserve reliable working-time records and investigate requests promptly. Internal instructions do not excuse statutory obligations.

An overtime claim should not be reduced to a binary question about whether the employee was physically present. The factual inquiry may concern instructions, performance of specific duties, knowledge or authorisation by the employer, and the reliability of time records. Conversely, a company cannot rely solely on a written approval policy if its actual work organisation consistently required unrecorded extra hours. The case demonstrates the need to evaluate the full evidentiary record and the particular claim; it does not create automatic entitlement or automatic exclusion in every overtime dispute. A workable employer system records assignments and exceptions, while an employee should retain dated evidence of actual work and managerial communications.

Keep schedules, written instructions, messages requesting extra work and any contemporaneous record showing what was done. Check the employer’s dispute procedure and seek advice promptly if unpaid overtime is contested.

An electronic access card can show that an employee entered a building at 7 p.m., but not necessarily whether overtime duties were performed or authorised. Conversely, a manager’s late message requesting a report, the report’s creation history and repeated after-hours correspondence may illuminate actual work that a basic attendance log missed. An employer’s records and internal approval policy are relevant, but their reliability and real-world application remain factual questions. The lawyer should build a chronology of instructions, completed work, working-time records, pay and relevant internal communications. The argument must connect that chronology to the particular statutory and contractual entitlement sought, rather than presume either that all after-hours presence is compensable or that all unapproved time is irrelevant.