DIA wins the case: its digital time tracking system dismantles a €3,939 overtime claim

An inventory worker at DIA claimed €3,938.95 in overtime pay, arguing that her actual working hours were 27.5 hours per week and that anything beyond that should be paid as overtime. The High Court of Justice of the Basque Country said no. The reason? DIA had a digital time tracking system that proved the annual working hours under the collective agreement were not exceeded.

What happened

The worker, classified as an inventory clerk (Group III, Area I) with seniority since September 19, 2012, worked for DIA Retail España S.A.U. from the workplace at Ibarrekolanda 32, Bilbao. Her role involved conducting inventories at stores across Asturias, Cantabria, the Basque Country, La Rioja, and Castile and León, traveling from Bilbao. Inventories were carried out between 6:30–9:00 AM and 2:00–5:00 PM.

In June 2023, she filed a claim for €3,938.95 gross for overtime worked between June 1, 2022 and April 30, 2023, plus 10% interest for late payment.

Her argument: that there was a more beneficial condition consisting of a 27.5-hour weekly schedule, compared to the 40 hours established in the collective agreement. Anything exceeding those 27.5 hours should, according to her, be compensated as overtime or, alternatively, as regular hours.

The previous ruling that seemed to support her

The worker relied on a collective dispute ruling from Labor Court No. 6 of Bilbao (July 15, 2021), which in its Fourth Finding stated:

“La empresa atribuye a las inventaristas una jornada de 27,5 horas semanales, si bien las considera dentro del contexto de una jornada completa (40 horas), agregando que, en caso de superar las 27,5 horas, el excedente se considera horas extraordinarias.”

Translation: “The company assigns inventory workers a 27.5-hour weekly schedule, although it considers this within the context of a full working week (40 hours), adding that any hours exceeding 27.5 are considered overtime.”

That ruling also recognized that travel time from Bilbao to the workplaces should count as effective working time.

However, the Basque Country High Court makes clear that this resolution does not establish that the company recognized a 27.5-hour weekly schedule as a more beneficial condition. The applicable schedule remained that of the collective agreement: 1,784 annual hours and 40 weekly hours.

The key role of digital time tracking

What changed everything. Following a requirement from the Labor Inspectorate (report dated January 21, 2021), DIA implemented a digital time tracking system for its inventory staff. The Inspectorate required:

“Para el colectivo de las inventaristas y supervisores (jefa de zona) se establezca un sistema de registro de jornada que refleje de manera objetiva y fiable la hora concreta de inicio y fin de la jornada de cada trabajador.”

Translation: “For inventory workers and supervisors, a time tracking system must be established that objectively and reliably reflects the exact start and end time of each worker’s shift.”

The ruling finds it proven that the tracking system was already in place throughout the entire claimed period (June 2022 – April 2023). And those records showed that the worker did not exceed the annual 1,784-hour limit under the collective agreement.

This fact is decisive. In a previous ruling by the same Court (November 12, 2024, appeal 1774/2024), the Basque Country High Court had ruled in favor of DIA workers in a similar claim. The difference? In that case, there was no time tracking system. The court itself acknowledges this:

“La Sala rechazó los cómputos de jornada que planteaba DIA Retail (…) porque no existía un registro de jornada, situación que no concurre en la actualidad.”

Translation: “The Court rejected the working hour calculations presented by DIA Retail (…) because there was no time tracking system, a situation that no longer applies.”

With digital time tracking, the burden of proof falls on the worker. Without it, the company loses.

Outcome

Both Labor Court No. 8 of Bilbao (ruling of May 22, 2025) and the Basque Country High Court (ruling of February 10, 2026) fully dismissed the claim:

• ❌ No more beneficial condition exists: the 27.5-hour schedule was not an acquired right, but the operational distribution of inventory work.
• ❌ No excess working hours: digital records prove that the 1,784 annual hours under the collective agreement were not exceeded.
• ❌ No overtime: since the excess was not proven, there is nothing to compensate.

What this case teaches businesses

Same company, same group of workers, same court. Without time tracking, DIA lost. With time tracking, DIA won.

Without time tracking:

• The company is left defenseless. The court can reverse the burden of proof and presume the hours were worked.
• Penalties for non-compliance can reach €225,018 per workplace.

With digital time tracking:

• The normal burden of proof applies: the worker must demonstrate the excess.
• Records serve as objective proof of actual working hours — against inspections, lawsuits, and claims like this one.
• In this specific case, the difference was €3,938.95 and a favorable ruling.

How to protect your business

DIA had to face an inspection to take action. You can avoid that.

The minimum: a digital time tracking system covering all employee groups (including mobile workers and irregular schedules), recording exact start and end times, and retained for at least 4 years. If you also want it to be easy to choose, look for something that requires no training or hardware.

With Cleverfy you can have all of this running in under 5 minutes, from €1.50/user per month. No contracts, no lock-in, and every clock-in method you need: web, mobile app, Chrome extension, or kiosk mode.

👉 Try Cleverfy free for 14 days — no credit card required.

---

Source: Ruling STSJ PV 473/2026 (ECLI:ES:TSJPV:2026:473), Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of the Basque Country, February 10, 2026.

Legal notice: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Names of individuals mentioned in the ruling have been anonymized in accordance with data protection regulations.