A trainer claims over 1,200 overtime hours: digital time tracking proved the company right

A worker claimed to have worked over 1,200 overtime hours per year — alleging a 2,929-hour annual workload compared to the 1,752 established in her collective agreement — and demanded €30,000 in moral damages. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia ruled in favour of the company. The key? It had a digital time tracking system that recorded every employee’s working hours.

What happened

The worker, a sports technician at a winter sports federation in Catalonia, had been employed since July 2020 on successive temporary contracts. After a period of sick leave for anxiety and more than two months without returning to work or justifying her absences, the company recorded her as having voluntarily resigned on 30 June 2024.

The worker filed a lawsuit claiming unfair dismissal, demanding payment for overtime due to alleged excess hours and €30,000 in compensation for violation of fundamental rights.

The evidence that changed everything

The turning point was the time tracking record. The company had implemented a digital time clock system called “Timenet” since 1 January 2023, and submitted the worker’s daily records as evidence.

The court makes it clear in the Fifth Legal Reasoning:

“The company has provided the daily working time record, since 1 January 2023, through an application called ‘Timenet’ (…) the company has fulfilled its obligation regarding daily time tracking as established in Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute.”

And here’s the direct consequence:

“The common rule on the burden of proof under Article 217.2 of the Civil Procedure Act must apply, and it falls on the worker to prove the excess working hours she claims, which she has not done.”

In other words: because the company did comply with its time tracking obligation, the worker had to prove she had worked more hours than those recorded. She couldn’t. This mechanism is known as the reversal of the burden of proof, and it is one of the most significant effects of having (or not having) a time tracking record.

An important detail: the worker wasn’t clocking in

The ruling also reveals that the company had to remind the worker on several occasions that she needed to use the time tracking system:

“The claimant had been warned on several occasions to carry out the clock-in.”

This detail matters. Having a time tracking system isn’t enough if employees don’t use it. The company did well to insist and document those reminders, which strengthened its position before the court.

Outcome

The Catalonia High Court fully dismissed the worker’s appeal:

• ❌ Overtime: not proven. The time tracking record showed 1,752 annual hours, matching the standard working hours under the applicable agreement.
• ❌ Unfair dismissal: there was no dismissal. The worker failed to return to work after being discharged from sick leave for over two months without justification.
• ❌ €30,000 compensation: no violation of fundamental rights was found.

The contrast: what happens when there’s NO record

This case is especially relevant when compared to what happens when a company has no time tracking record. In a recent case in Biscay, a restaurant was ordered to pay €3,311.70 in overtime precisely because it couldn’t prove the worker hadn’t worked those hours.

The difference is clear: with time tracking, the company is protected; without it, the company almost always loses.

What companies can learn

This case demonstrates something many companies still don’t realise: digital time tracking isn’t just a legal obligation — it’s a protection tool. And the penalties for not having it can range from €751 to €225,018 per workplace.

Without time tracking:

• The court can reverse the burden of proof and require the company to demonstrate there was no overtime.
• The company is left in a weak position against any claim.

With time tracking:

• The normal burden of proof applies: it’s up to the worker to prove the excess.
• Records serve as objective evidence of actual working hours.
• The company has documentary support against inspections and lawsuits.

How to avoid it

The difference between winning and losing a case like this can be as simple as having an operational time tracking system. Nothing complex is needed:

1. Implement a digital time tracking system that complies with Article 34.9 of the Workers’ Statute.
2. Make sure all employees clock in — and document reminders if someone doesn’t.
3. Keep records for at least 4 years, which is the legal retention period.
4. Choose a reliable and accessible system that allows workers to check their own records at any time.

With Cleverfy you can have all of this up and running in less than 5 minutes, from €1.50/user per month. No contracts, no lock-in, and with all the clocking methods you need: web, mobile app, Chrome extension, or kiosk mode.

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

---

Source: Ruling STSJ CAT 173/2026 (ECLI:ES:TSJCAT:2026:173), Social Chamber of the High Court of Justice of Catalonia, 23 January 2026.

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