In the current case, a delivery driver from Lower Saxony claimed payment for overtime spanning a period of one and half years. This was based on the employer’s technical time recording. It was unclear whether these recordings also served to document overtime.
In the first instance, technical time recording serves as sufficient evidence
The Emden Labor Court sustained the claim in the first instance. According to a decision from the European Court of Justice from May 2019, the defendant employer must record and monitor working hours. The technical recordings submitted provided sufficient evidence for the work performed. The defendant was unable to refute this by demonstrating break times, for example.
The State Labor Court did not share this opinion: The decision from Luxembourg (C-55/18) made no statement about the burden of proof in the overtime process. This process addressed the question of whether the employer had ordered overtime, tolerated it or whether it was an operational necessity. The European Court of Justice does not have any competence to decide on remuneration questions.
The State Labor Court explicitly permitted the appeal to the German Federal Labor Court. The pending decision is awaited with excitement.
Lower Saxony State Labor Court (Ref.: 5 SA 1292/29)
Disputes about the remuneration for overtime frequently occur, especially after the end of the employment relationship. To minimize process risks, companies should not only implement a time recording system but also regularly check the working hours and document this process.
