Our client was sued by their employee in the Vasileostrovsky District court of St. Petersburg for the recovery of overtime wages, including compensation for work on weekends and holidays, late wage payments, moral damages, and legal expenses.

According to the case materials, the employer had established the Employee’s normal working hours under the Labor code of the Russian Federation (LC RF). At the same time, the latter stated that he worked overtime without extra overtime payments. At the trial, these circumstances were to be confirmed by the security guard who saw the employee on weekends and public holidays wearing his uniform, by two other employees of the client, with whom the plaintiff dined with during weekends and holidays. In addition, the employee provided a chart, similar to a time sheet with his name and hours on it, certified by the client’s stamp that was kept on the construction site where the employee worked.

However, the employee was not aware that the Labor code establishes a specific procedure and limitation of overtime, also applicable for work done on weekends and holidays. According to the Labour code, an employer needs to submit an order for overtime in writing (article 99 of the LC RF) and the exact amount of overtime hours worked needs to be approved by the employer. None of such documents were presented.

The plaintiff’s evidence of a table with some numbers without indication that they are overtime hours, without specifying the name of a document or supported by signatures, with just a seal of the employer on it, delivered by an unknown person were not a sufficient proof. Time spent by an employee at a workplace outside regular business hours during 2015-2016 is not sufficient evidence to prove to be actual overtime work in terms of labor law.

Testimony given by the security guard cannot be considered as evidence proving the amount of time worked by an employee during a specific period of time at the request of the employer, as the interviewed person worked in other locations during this period of time as well.

The Court agreed with the above legal arguments and did conclude that our client did not violate any labor law requirements and did not award the plaintiff any damages or compensation.