Regarding overtime
Under Article L. 3121-29 of the French Labor Code, overtime is calculated on a weekly basis.
It follows from the provisions of Articles L. 3171-2 (paragraph 1), L. 3171-3, and L. 3171-4 of the Labor Code that, in the event of a dispute concerning the existence or number of hours worked, it is incumbent upon the employee to present—in support of their claim—sufficiently precise details regarding the unpaid hours they allege to have worked; this enables the employer, who is responsible for monitoring working hours, to provide a meaningful response by producing their own evidence.
It is undisputed that Ms. X’s employment contract stipulates a weekly working time of 36 hours and 2 minutes.
Ms. X maintains that she worked 109 hours of overtime and has produced a table detailing the hours worked, as well as emails sent alongside Google Maps geolocation logs.
She explains that her break time was deducted and that her employer did not object to her working these overtime hours.
In response, the S.C.P. The firm of notaries Jean-François Humbert, Jean-Michel Siméon, Alexis Baudry, Jeanne Piffaut, and Thomas Le Bourg argues that the spreadsheet submitted by the employee contains inconsistencies—such as listing workdays on public holidays or on days when she was taking time off in lieu of overtime (RTT)—specifically May 27, June 6, July 15, September 20, and October 31, 2022, and May 19 and May 29, 2023, as well as days of paid leave, such as the period from September 21 to 30, 2022.
The firm disputes the use of the MAPS log, explaining that a distinction must be made between time spent on the premises and actual working time, noting that the firm had always stipulated that no overtime was to be worked—with everyone required to ensure they did not work any—as evidenced by a document titled "internal memo."
It is evident from the documents submitted to the proceedings that there is sufficiently precise and consistent evidence demonstrating that overtime was worked—such as the MAPS logs corresponding to her workdays and hours, and the employer's address matching that found in submitted emails.
It should be noted that the defendant—who, as the employer, is responsible for monitoring hours worked—fails to provide an effective rebuttal through the submission of its own precise evidence.
Consequently, Ms. X is awarded back pay for overtime, which the Council sets at a sum of €1,200, plus €120 for the associated paid leave.
However, as the employee has failed to demonstrate a violation of maximum daily working time limits, her claim in this regard is dismissed.
To read the full article, click the link below.
Frédéric CHHUM avocat et ancien membre du conseil de l’ordre des avocats de Paris (mandat 2019-2021)
CHHUM AVOCATS (Paris, Nantes, Lille)
e-mail: chhum@chhum-avocats.com
https://www.instagram.com/fredericchhum/?hl=fr
Paris: 34 rue Petrelle 75009 Paris tel: 0142560300
Nantes: 41, Quai de la Fosse 44000 Nantes tel: 0228442644
Lille: : 45, Rue Saint Etienne 59000 Lille – Ligne directe +(33) 03.20.57.53.24
Pas de contribution, soyez le premier