The lack of a work schedule record does not automatically prove overtime hours

 

The Supreme Court has once again ruled on one of the most debated issues in labor matters: the work schedule record and claims for overtime hours. In its judgment of April 15,2026 (Rec. 674/25), the High Court clarifies that the lack of hourly record by the company does not automatically imply that all overtime hours claimed by a worker should be considered proven.

Labor regulations require companies to keep a daily record of the workday to ensure compliance with legal limits on work and rest. This record must objectively reflect the start and end of the workday and serves as a control tool for both the company and the workers and the Labor Inspection.

However, the Supreme Court recalls that non-compliance with this obligation constitutes an administrative offense, but does not automatically mean that any claim for overtime hours should be accepted.

Difference between fixed and variable schedules

One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the differentiation between fixed schedules and variable workdays.

In jobs with variable schedules or unpredictable shift systems, the company has a greater obligation to prove the time actually worked, especially if there is no adequate work schedule record.

On the other hand, when there is a fixed and known schedule agreed upon by both parties, the worker must provide reasonable evidence that they were actually working outside the agreed-upon work hours. According to the Supreme Court, the company cannot be constantly required to prove a negative fact, that is, to demonstrate that there were no excess work hours.

The importance of providing evidence

The judgment also clarifies that the worker does not need to mathematically prove each overtime hour worked, but must provide minimum elements that raise suspicions that the regular schedule was not being followed.

Among the evidence that can serve as proof are:

• Emails sent outside working hours.

• Work-related messages at night or on holidays.

• Computer access logs.

• Witnesses.

• Activity reports or work schedules.

Only when these indications exist, the absence of hourly records can have true probative value against the company.

In the case analyzed by the Supreme Court, the worker detailed the claimed overtime hours, but did not present external evidence to prove that he actually worked beyond his regular hours. Therefore, the court considered the claim insufficient and rejected that the lack of record was enough to automatically recognize the amounts claimed.

The Supreme Court's ruling sets an important criterion in labor matters: the absence of hourly records does not automatically validate all claims for overtime hours. In cases of fixed schedules, the worker must provide reasonable evidence that there were actual excesses of working hours for the lack of time control to have probative relevance against the company.