Time Tracking: The Latest Supreme Court Ruling Sends a Clear Warning to Employers

Employee time tracking remains one of the employment obligations that raises the most questions among employers. A recent Supreme Court ruling has once again brought attention to a particularly sensitive issue: what happens when a company fails to properly record working hours and an employee claims overtime pay.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 372/2026, issued on 15 April, establishes an important legal criterion, clarifying that the absence of a working time record does not automatically mean that all overtime hours claimed by the employee must be considered proven.

However, this ruling should not be misunderstood: the employer’s obligation to record employees’ working time remains fully enforceable, and failure to comply continues to expose businesses to significant legal risks.

The Supreme Court clarifies a common question about overtime

The judgment examines a case in which an employee claimed more than €11,000 for alleged overtime worked, while the employer did not have a complete and continuous working time recording system.

The legal question was straightforward: does failing to keep a daily working time record automatically require the employer to bear the entire burden of proof?

The Supreme Court’s answer is no.

The Labour Chamber held that there is no automatic reversal of the burden of proof in every case. The consequences depend primarily on the type of working schedule agreed between the parties.

The key distinction: fixed schedules or irregular working hours

The criterion established by the Supreme Court distinguishes between two different scenarios.

On the one hand, where there is a fixed, individualised schedule known to both parties, the absence of a working time record is not, by itself, sufficient to prove all the overtime hours claimed. In these cases, the employee must provide reasonable evidence that the agreed working schedule was not actually followed.

On the other hand, where there is an irregular, variable or unpredictable working schedule, the situation changes. If the employer does not have a valid time recording system, it may be required to prove the hours actually worked.

This interpretation is consistent with the general principle regarding the availability of evidence established under Article 217 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Act.

 

Request more information

 

Working time recording remains a mandatory legal obligation

Since 2019, all employers in Spain have been required to record their employees’ daily working hours, regardless of the size of the company or the sector in which they operate.

In addition, Article 34.9 of the Spanish Workers’ Statute requires the system to provide an objective, reliable and accessible record of the actual time worked.

In other words, simply having a system in place is not enough.

Incomplete records, unreliable manual timesheets or systems that do not accurately reflect the hours actually worked can create problems similar to having no time recording system at all.

The real risk goes far beyond overtime claims

One of the most common misconceptions is that working time recording is only useful for dealing with potential wage or overtime claims.

In reality, an inadequate system may expose employers to several risks, including:

• Employment claims relating to excessive working hours.
• Penalties arising from labour inspections.
• Difficulties in demonstrating compliance with mandatory rest periods.
• Disputes relating to the right to disconnect or employee availability outside working hours.

In many cases, the problem does not become apparent until an internal dispute or a labour inspection takes place.

And when that happens, reconstructing working hours retrospectively is often extremely difficult.

Many companies still treat it as a mere administrative formality

The Supreme Court ruling also delivers an important practical message: working time recording is not simply an administrative requirement. It is increasingly becoming an essential part of a company’s labour compliance framework.

Despite this, it is still common to find organisations that continue to rely on unreliable systems, incomplete manual records or internal procedures that fail to accurately reflect employees’ actual working hours.

This issue is particularly relevant in workplaces operating with remote work, flexible schedules or hybrid working models.

Compliance is about preventing legal risks, not just meeting legal obligations

The legal debate over who bears the burden of proving overtime should not distract employers from what truly matters.

Working time recording not only protects employees. It also provides employers with valuable legal certainty.

Clear procedures, reliable systems and a well-defined employment compliance policy can help prevent disputes, penalties and future issues that often go unnoticed until it is too late.

Is your company’s working time recording system fully aligned with employment legislation?

The Adlanter Labour team helps businesses review their labour compliance processes, ensuring that key areas such as working time recording, time management and regulatory compliance are properly implemented and protected against potential legal risks.