Publication date: February 23, 2026
Disputes over overtime payment are among the most common disputes arising in employment relationships. Their specific nature lies in the fact that they do not solely involve the interpretation of labor law provisions, but rather, for the most part, require a detailed determination of the factual circumstances. It is crucial to determine whether the employee actually performed work outside the applicable working hours, to what extent, and whether this work meets the criteria for being considered overtime work under the Labor Code.
Pursuant to Article 151 § 1 of the Labor Code, overtime work is work performed in excess of the employee’s standard working hours or in excess of the extended daily working time resulting from the applicable work time system and schedule. This means that simply exceeding the standard working time does not always result in overtime – the working time system and the settlement period to which the employee is subject must always be taken into account.
A crucial element of procedural assessment is the evidentiary nature of these disputes. Working time documentation plays a crucial role, particularly work time records, which – pursuant to Article 149 § 1 of the Labor Code – are the employer’s statutory obligation to maintain. These records serve to accurately determine remuneration and other work-related benefits and should reflect the employee’s actual working time, including overtime.
In procedural practice, these disputes primarily involve evidentiary disputes. Working time documentation plays a crucial role, particularly work time records, which – pursuant to Article 149 § 1 of the Labor Code – are a statutory obligation for employers to maintain. These records serve to correctly determine remuneration and other work-related benefits and should reflect the employee’s actual working time, including overtime.
Failure to keep working time records or maintaining them inaccurately places a burden on the employer and may require the court to seek other evidence, such as the testimony of the parties and witnesses, or documents indirectly confirming working time. In such cases, the employer bears the evidentiary risk of determining the actual working hours.
Consequently, disputes over overtime pay demonstrate the crucial importance of proper work organization and accurate timekeeping. This obligation is not only formal in nature but also serves a key evidentiary function, often determining the outcome of labor court proceedings.
Obligation to keep records of working time
The obligation to maintain records of working time is one of the fundamental obligations of employers under labor law. Pursuant to Article 149 § 1 of the Labor Code, employers are obligated to maintain records of employee working time in a manner that allows for the accurate determination of employee remuneration and other work-related benefits. The purpose of records is not solely to manage working time, but primarily to ensure the correct settlement of employee entitlements.
Working time records should include, in particular, the number of hours actually worked, including overtime, night work, work on Sundays and public holidays, on-call shifts, and periods of absence from work if these affect the right to remuneration or other benefits. Their scope is determined by both the provisions of the Labor Code and implementing regulations regarding employee documentation.
Properly maintained records should reflect an employee’s actual working time, not just the planned work schedule. This means accurately recording actual working hours and any deviations from standard working hours, including overtime.
The importance of time records extends beyond the administrative sphere. In the event of a legal dispute, particularly regarding overtime pay, they constitute the primary evidence documenting working time. Failure to keep records or maintaining them reliably burdens the employer and may result in the need to determine working time based on other evidence, with the employer bearing the evidentiary risk in such cases.
The importance of working time records in overtime proceedings
In overtime compensation proceedings, working time records generally constitute the most reliable and objective evidence. They enable verification of whether the work was performed outside of standard working hours, whether it met the criteria for overtime work within the meaning of Article 151 § 1 of the Labor Code, and the actual amount of overtime work.
Accurately maintained work time records allow for the accurate determination of hours worked and the amount of remuneration due. They also serve as an important tool for protecting the employer’s interests, enabling them to defend against unjustified employee claims. Furthermore, the absence of records or their unreliable maintenance significantly hinders the reconstruction of actual work time records and, in practice, often leads to negative evidentiary consequences for the employer.
Lack of working time records and the distribution of the burden of proof
The lack of working time records has significant implications for the burden of proof in overtime disputes. However, according to the established Supreme Court ruling, it does not automatically lead to the employee’s claims being upheld or their claims regarding the number of overtime hours worked being accepted as true. The employee is still obligated to demonstrate the fact of working overtime and the extent of that work.
As the Polish Supreme Court indicated in its judgment of 11 March 2011 (I PSKP 34/21), in the absence of working time records or their reliable maintenance, the court conducts a comprehensive assessment of all evidence collected, including both the fact of overtime work and its scope. At the same time, however, the employer’s failure to comply with the recording obligation burdens them procedurally. In its judgment of 19 December 2013 (II PK 70/13), the Supreme Court emphasized that the lack of records has adverse consequences for the employer when the employee proves their claim using other admissible evidence.
In practice, this means that if an employee does not keep records of working time, they can prove that they have performed overtime by means of, among other things, witness statements, email correspondence or data from IT systems, and if this evidence is deemed credible, the burden of effectively challenging it rests with the employer.
Assessment of substitute evidence in the absence of records
The evaluation of substitute evidence in the absence of working time records and the preventive importance of maintaining records are key issues in labor law practice, particularly in the context of disputes over overtime pay. Properly maintaining working time records not only facilitates ongoing payroll settlement but also serves a fundamental evidentiary and preventive function, reducing the risk of litigation and the employer’s financial liability.
In situations where an employer fails to maintain working time records or maintains them unreliably, labor courts accept a wide range of substitute evidence. According to established Supreme Court case law, the absence of records does not automatically lead to the acceptance of an employee’s claims as true, but it weakens the employer’s evidentiary position, depriving them of a fundamental defense. When assessing the employee’s claim in the absence of records, the court relies on the entirety of the evidence collected. The most frequently used evidence in such cases includes the testimony of co-workers and supervisors, electronic correspondence confirming work performed outside standard hours, system logs and reports from IT systems, as well as indirect documents such as work schedules, work schedules, and work orders. Each of these pieces of evidence allows for the reconstruction of the employee’s actual working hours, and if they are deemed credible, the employer bears the burden of successfully challenging them.
The preventive importance of working time records
In addition to their evidentiary role, working time records serve a significant preventative function. Pursuant to Article 149 § 1 of the Labor Code, the obligation to maintain records includes documenting not only the number of hours worked, but also overtime, night work, work on Sundays and public holidays, as well as on-call and absence periods that affect remuneration entitlement. Accurate records allow for the ongoing identification of working time violations specified in Articles 129–135 of the Labor Code, prevent unauthorized accumulation of overtime, enable early response to organizational irregularities, and reduce the risk of litigation and potential financial claims from employees.
In practice, this means that recording working time is not only a formal statutory obligation but also a legal risk management tool. By maintaining accurate and up-to-date documentation of working time, employers protect their legal interests, ensure accurate payroll settlement, and minimize the risk of negative financial consequences resulting from improper overtime calculation. Consequently, recording working time is both a fundamental evidentiary tool in the event of a legal dispute and a key element of effective employment management, reducing the risk of unauthorized overtime and employee conflicts.
I PSKP 34/21
In the case of RG v. PSA, concerning overtime pay, the Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s judgment regarding the determination of the “appropriate amount” and remanded the case for reconsideration. The plaintiff was employed at a lending company as a development manager under a task-based work schedule and claimed that he worked approximately 12 hours per day, which amounted to 60 hours per week. On this basis, he claimed overtime pay of PLN 45,815.42 plus benefits. The District Court, assuming the plaintiff’s average working hours, awarded him the full amount of the claim. However, the District Court reduced the amount due to PLN 37,500, arguing that the lack of detailed time records prevented an accurate determination of the number of hours worked and applied Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure, finding that an award of “appropriate amount” was possible.
The Supreme Court found that the allegations regarding the evaluation of evidence and factual findings were unfounded, as the Supreme Court is bound by the factual findings of the second-instance court. However, the allegation regarding Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid: the District Court erroneously determined the “appropriate amount” based on half of the claimed amount, without properly considering all the circumstances of the case and without applying a conversion formula corresponding to the nature of the claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases involving precise proof of the number of hours worked is impossible or difficult, and that the court should determine the plaintiff’s working time as precisely as possible and develop a conversion formula that allows for determining the “appropriate amount” in a manner that reflects the actual benefit.
The Supreme Court noted that the lack of working time records does not automatically shift the burden of proof to the employer; the employee must establish the factual basis for their claim and demonstrate the hours worked, and the court assesses the credibility of the evidence presented. The amount awarded must be based on ascertainable facts and reflect the relationship between working time and remuneration. In practice, this means that when determining overtime pay, the court may use averages and approximations, but only based on the probable hours worked and using an explicit conversion formula that takes into account the nature of the claim and working time standards. Consequently, the District Court’s action was improper, as the “appropriate amount” was determined arbitrarily, without such justification.
In its judgment of November 23, 2001, the Supreme Court heard a case brought by Stefan C. and Zdzisław K. against their employer seeking compensation for overtime and night work, severance pay, and correction of employment certificates. The plaintiffs were employed as part-time receptionists and porters, but in fact worked a 12/24 shift, which, in their opinion, constituted a constant exceedance of working hours and justified both wage claims and the determination of full-time employment. The courts of first and second instance dismissed their claims, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the specific days and extent of overtime and night work, and that simply performing work in excess of the agreed-upon hours did not result in a change in their full-time employment.
The Supreme Court partially dismissed the cassation appeal, deeming it inadmissible with respect to the correction of employment certificates and severance payments, emphasizing that it is not permissible to transform a claim for the correction of an employment certificate into a claim for establishing a different employment duration. At the same time, the Supreme Court confirmed that performing work in excess of the agreed-upon hours in such a case is only entitled to remuneration for the work actually performed, including overtime.
In the remaining respects, the Supreme Court found the cassation appeal justified. It pointed out that the position that the burden of proof regarding working hours rests solely with the employee is erroneous. This burden is shared between the parties: the employee must prove the basic fact of their claims (Article 6 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 300 of the Labor Code), while the employer is obligated to maintain and store working time records (after January 1, 2004, Article 149 of the Labor Code). The absence or loss of such documentation burdens the employer and cannot automatically lead to the dismissal of the employee’s claims. In situations where the precise determination of overtime or night work is difficult, the court should consider applying Article 322 of the Civil Code and award appropriate remuneration based on all the circumstances of the case. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment in the part concerning wage claims and remanded the case for reconsideration.
II PK 231/11
In its judgment of May 14, 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed the employee’s cassation appeal, finding that he had failed to demonstrate overtime work and that the allegation of failure to properly record overtime work was unfounded in these circumstances. The plaintiff was employed as a forwarding coordinator and claimed that he regularly worked after hours, including making business phone calls, without the employer recording this time. However, the second-instance court determined that, with his employer’s consent, the plaintiff regularly left the workplace during working hours for personal purposes, often for periods longer than the employee’s break entitlement, without recording these absences despite the obligation to report them. In the court’s opinion, this time compensated for activities performed after hours. Furthermore, after the end of the workday, the work was performed at the plaintiff’s initiative, without instructions or a real need from the employer, who organized the work so that these activities could be handled by the 24-hour monitoring department.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere failure of an employer to maintain work time records does not create a presumption of overtime work performed in the amount reported by the employee. The burden of proof cannot be assessed in isolation from the employee’s conduct. An employee who fails to report start and end times and departures during working hours, thus preventing the employer from properly maintaining work time records, cannot effectively invoke their lack or unreliability (Article 149 of the Labor Code). This principle is justified by the rule that no one may derive legal benefits from their own negligence.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that working time only includes time spent at the employer’s disposal, and leaving the workplace for private purposes does not meet this definition. Activities performed after hours can be considered overtime only if they arise from the employer’s specific needs and are performed at the employer’s request, or at least with their consent. If the employee performs these activities on their own initiative, contrary to the established work organization and without the employer’s need, they cannot constitute grounds for claims for overtime compensation. Consequently, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate overtime work and that the District Court’s judgment was correct.
II PSKP 34/22
In its judgment of 5 April 2023, the Supreme Court confirmed the established position that failure to maintain, or unreliable maintenance of, working time records by an employer does not automatically lead to the employee’s claims regarding the number of overtime hours worked being upheld. The obligation to record working time arises from Article 149 of the Labor Code and EU law, including Directive 2003/88/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-55/18), but these provisions do not establish the principle that in the absence of records, the court must not accept the employee’s version without further evidentiary proceedings.
In overtime compensation disputes, general evidentiary rules are decisive. The employee must prove that they actually performed work beyond the applicable working hours (Article 6 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 300 of the Labor Code). Failure to keep records of working hours may be considered to be detrimental to the employer, but only in conjunction with other evidence presented by the employee, such as witness statements, documents, or factual presumptions. The mere fact of not keeping records does not create a legal presumption or actual overtime performance.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that Article 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure is exceptional in nature and may only be applied when the basis of the claim has been proven and it is impossible or excessively difficult to precisely determine its amount. This provision cannot replace evidentiary proceedings or serve to “sanction” an employer for failing to record working time.