In short
In a claim of overtime work, the result in most files is determined by proof: the time sheet, the card, the correspondence, and the witness are read together. The order of the claim and of mediation for overtime that was not paid is in the article on overtime pay is not being paid. Memorising the hours does not give rise to the calculation.
In disputes about an overtime claim, the result is often determined by proof. The employee tries to set out the time they actually worked; the employer answers with the payroll, the time sheet, and the records of payment. If there is no written record, the witness, the traffic of messages, and the actual arrangement of the workplace come into play. This text is for general information; it does not contain a promise of a definite amount of the claim, or of the result of the action.
What does proof of overtime mean?
Overtime expresses working times that exceed the statutory weekly working time, or working times for which a separate wage is provided within the frame of the contract or the statute. When the employee claims a wage for these times, the court first investigates whether overtime was actually worked. The burden of proof is, as a general rule, on the employee who makes the claim; the employer's duty to keep records, and the documents put forward, balance the process, however.
Proof is not only the question of "how many hours a week". Which days, which hours, under which work instruction, whether payment was made, and the periods caught by limitation are examined together. Within the frame of labour law, similar debates about proof are also met, with different types of evidence, in the calculation of severance pay.
Whom does it concern?
- Employees who claim that overtime pay was not paid
- Employers who keep, or do not keep, a time sheet and a payroll record
- Workplaces where actual overtime is dense, in shifts, in the field, in retail, in logistics, and in the service sector
- Employees who, after leaving the work, think of an action for claims together
- Businesses that want to digitise the system of records
- Parties who assess the heads of claim together in the process of an action for reinstatement
The same structure of evidence is not at every workplace. In office-type work the email trace can be marked; in production or field work the witness and the shift chart come more to the front.
The tools of proof: the record, the witness, and the digital trace
The payroll, the time sheet, and the entry-and-exit records
Time sheets that the employer kept regularly, card stamping, a turnstile, or the records of a digital overtime system are in the strong group of evidence. If there is an overtime line on the payroll, a claim of payment comes onto the agenda too. The employee can put forward that the payroll they signed does not reflect the truth; in this case it is debated which signature, in which period, meant what.
If there is no record at all, or it is systematically missing, the court can make an assessment together with the other evidence that supports the employee's claim. Saying "we did not keep a record" does not automatically give rise to a result in the employee's favour; a lack of records creates an important gap in the file, however.
The witness and written communication
Concrete accounts of hours and days by witnesses who worked at the same workplace are valuable. General sentences such as "they worked a lot" stay weak. WhatsApp groups, email chains, messages about the time of the shuttle, or weekend duty lists can show the actual arrangement.
While evidence is gathered, confidentiality, personal data, and the rules of procedure should not be ignored. The use of records obtained contrary to the law can give rise to a separate debate.
The expert and the technical examination
In complex shifts, equalisation, or structures with many branches, an expert's report is often seen. The expert compares the records that were put forward with the witness accounts, and draws out a period that can be calculated. The report is not a document that wins on its own; it directs the court's discretion.
How does the legal process advance?
- Clarifying the claim and the periods. Which months or years are within the claim? Which periods are risky as to limitation?
- Mediation. In labour disputes the obligation of mediation can come onto the agenda; if there is no agreement, the route of the action opens with the final minute.
- The claim and the list of evidence. The time sheet, the payroll, the bank payment slip, the list of witnesses, prints of messages, and the employment contract if there is one, are added.
- The other side's defence. The employer puts forward the records, or defends that there is no record, or that the actual work was different.
- The taking of evidence. The hearing of witnesses, the examination of documents, the expert, and the hearings run.
- The decision and enforcement. If the claim is awarded, the stage of enforcement proceedings is assessed separately.
The same basic principles of proof apply in the labour courts in Ankara too. The caseload and the period of the expert can change the calendar of the file; the rules of procedure do not change.
Practical suggestions from the side of the employer and of the employee
On the employee's side: noting the events on a basis of date and hour, backing up messages and emails, and, if possible, thinking of the list of witnesses early is useful. Reading the content while signing the payroll, and leaving an objection in writing, can be evidence later.
On the employer's side: discipline of the time sheet, the shift plan being in writing, and the overtime payment appearing on the payroll reduce the risk of a dispute. Practices said to be "already inside the salary" give rise to a debate if they are not in a written arrangement.
For both sides, a folder arrangement on a basis of periods, rather than scattered documents, saves time in the process of the expert and of the court.
The calculation of the wage and the limits of the claim
When overtime is proved, the next stage is on which wage the calculation will be made. The gross wage, side benefits, a bonus, and special arrangements in the contract can affect the calculation. While the employee says "I had this much overtime a month", the employer can say "these heads were met inside the salary". The court compares the clauses of the contract with the actual practice.
The periods that will be claimed are limited by limitation. The whole of the old years may not be able to be asked for automatically. In the claim, rather than an uncertain expression of "all my overtime", stating the period and the approximate hours as far as possible strengthens the approach to evidence. A definite figure can become clear at the expert stage too; it matters, however, that the allegation is consistent from the start.
Equalisation and shift systems
At some workplaces a system of equalisation, or of balanced working, is applied. In this case work that concentrates in the weekly average, or in certain periods, can differentiate the calculation of overtime. Changes of shift, night work, and the practice of the weekly rest are assessed separately too. A claim of "I stayed every night" can stay weak without a shift chart and a duty list.
The employment contract and the internal directive
A special rate of wage, or an upper limit, for overtime may have been written in the contract. If rules such as "a tolerance of fifteen minutes" in the internal directive conflict with the actual practice, a debate arises. Even if the employee never read the documents they signed, the signature and the content are assessed together. Whether the provisions of the contract are contrary to mandatory statute is examined separately.
Mediation and the practice of the action
In labour disputes, mediation can come onto the agenda as a condition of the action. The documents and the minute put forward at the mediation session leave a trace for the later action too. If an agreement is reached, the process shortens; if it is not reached, the matters in disagreement are stated in the minute. If the subject of overtime is not written clearly in the minute, a debate about the scope can be experienced in the later claim.
After the action is brought, the employer can put the records forward together; the employee can bring a further witness or evidence of a message. In the labour courts of Ankara, because of the caseload, an expert's report can take several months. This delay requires that the discipline of gathering evidence is not neglected in the early period.
In practice the employee's side sometimes rests only on a claim of "I stayed late every day"; the employer puts forward no record at all. The court balances both gaps in the file. Particularly in small businesses, if there is no habit of a time sheet, the number of witnesses and the traffic of messages become decisive. In large businesses, a claim of a difference between the turnstile record and the actual density of work is debated. In both scenarios it is useful to draw a table on a basis of periods.
The relevant legislation (general frame)
The arrangements of overtime take place in the Labour Code and the related legislation. The weekly working time, the wage for overtime work, and the rules of equalisation should be read together. A collective agreement, or a workplace practice, cannot entirely remove the statutory frame; the mandatory provisions are preserved. Which arrangement will be applied in the concrete file is determined by the contract and the actual arrangement.
The exception for a manager and for security staff
In some positions the working time and the claim of overtime are assessed differently. Special arrangements can come onto the agenda for employees in a manager's position, for security officers, or for those who work in domestic service. The assumption that "every employee is subject to the same overtime rule" is wrong. If the title in the contract and the actual job description do not fit, a debate arises.
A part-time and a temporary employment relationship
In those who work part-time, the weekly time threshold is calculated differently. In a temporary employment relationship, a claim of overtime can also bring onto the agenda the question of who is responsible in the chain of the principal employer and the sub-employer. Although the types of evidence are similar in every type of relationship, the approach to proof changes.
The assessment of evidence in practice
The court assesses the evidence together, not one by one. A consistent witness account against a strong payroll can give rise to a result in the employee's favour. A complete time sheet against a weak screenshot of a message can be read in the employer's favour. Rather than saying "there is no evidence" in the file, it is useful that which evidence supports which allegation is put forward as a table.
In actions for a claim brought after leaving the work, access to witnesses can become harder; for that reason gathering records before the leaving is important in practice. If the head of overtime is not written openly in the mediation minute, the scope of the later action can narrow.
Frequent mistakes
- Claiming all the overtime with a single figure, and not giving the detail of the day and the hour
- Leaving the list of witnesses as "my friends know", without giving names
- Not looking at the content at all after the payroll is signed
- Skipping the mediation period and bringing the action directly
- Not making the calculation of limitation, and claiming the old periods unnecessarily
- Not keeping the employer's records systematically, and then trying to remember them one by one
- Putting forward a screenshot of a message torn from its context
Risk of a loss of rights: the periods of mediation, of limitation, and of gathering evidence can be short. An early regular record, and a check of the calendar, matter.
Where the overtime record is read from
The time sheet, the card record, and the correspondence are read side by side. An overtime rate that is not written in the file is not added. A witness account is not put in place of the payroll. The Çankaya office does not choose the court with venue.
Conclusion
Proof of overtime is a process in which the record, the witness, the digital trace, and the expert's assessment come together. There is not a single formula. The employment contract, the actual arrangement, and the documents put forward should be read together. This writing is for general information; the result can change in the concrete file.
For a wider frame you can look at the labour law page, and, in the context of the heads of claim, at the articles on severance pay and on reinstatement.
A lawyer in Ankara does not write an overtime rate that is not in the file.