Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly prove not only that they actually performed work beyond their ordinary working hours, but also the quantitative extent of such work. In this regard, the Supreme Court held inadmissible witness evidence requests formulated merely by referring to summary schedules showing hours worked and the wage differences claimed, highlighting that such requests are generic and evaluative in nature and are therefore unsuitable for establishing specific historical facts.

Facts of the case

The dispute arose from opposition to enforcement proceedings brought by an employer against a payment demand served by one of its employees on the basis of an assessment notice issued by the labour inspectorate in relation to alleged wage differences resulting from the inaccurate recording of working hours.

During the proceedings, the employee also filed a counterclaim seeking payment of additional wage differences for overtime work beyond those already considered in the inspection notice. The Court of First Instance dismissed the employer’s opposition and confirmed the credit resulting from the assessment notice, while rejecting the employee’s counterclaim for lack of evidence.

The Turin Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the first-instance decision in its entirety. In particular, it pointed out that, although an assessment notice may acquire enforceable status, it does not constitute definitive proof of the facts on which it is based and does not relieve the employee of the burden of proving in court the facts giving rise to the claim asserted. On that basis, the Court of Appeal found that the employee had failed to prove the alleged credit and consequently ordered the employee to repay the amounts received pursuant to the inspection notice.

The employee appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had wrongly found the witness evidence requests inadmissible and that it should have exercised its powers under Articles 421 and 437 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.

The Italian Supreme Court’s ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision.

First, the Court referred to its settled case law according to which “employees claiming payment for overtime work bear the burden of strictly proving both the performance of such work and, at least in sufficiently concrete and realistic terms, its quantitative extent”.

Applying this principle, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal’s finding that the witness evidence requests submitted by the employee were inadmissible. In fact, the requests merely asked witnesses to confirm a schedule showing the hours allegedly worked, those recorded in the payslips and the related wage differences claimed. According to the Supreme Court, such witness evidence requests were correctly classified as “essentially generic and merely evaluative”, since they were not aimed at establishing specific historical facts but were instead based on reconstruction and assessment activities that are incompatible with the nature and purpose of witness testimony.

The Supreme Court also ruled out any obligation on the part of the Court of Appeal to exercise the ex officio investigative powers provided for by Articles 421 and 437 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. In this regard, the Court reiterated that such powers are discretionary in nature and that their non-exercise cannot be challenged on appeal before the Supreme Court, except in specific circumstances.

Referring to its most recent case law, the Supreme Court further clarified that judges may exercise their ex officio investigative powers only where there is a concrete “evidentiary trail” already emerging from the case file that is capable of filling an evidentiary gap concerning facts that have been duly pleaded and are decisive to the outcome of the dispute.

The Court found that this condition was not met in the present case, given the generic nature of the witness evidence requests and the lack of evidence already on record that could have provided a basis for ex officio evidentiary measures.

The Court therefore confirmed the correctness of the challenged decision, noting that a different interpretation would ultimately “affect the allocation of the burden of proof” and substitute the judge’s investigative activity for that which properly belongs to the parties.

Conclusions

The ruling is consistent with the settled case law requiring particularly strict proof of wage claims based on overtime work. Employees cannot merely produce summary schedules or submit generic witness evidence requests, but must allege and prove specific historical facts capable of demonstrating both the actual performance of work beyond ordinary working hours and its quantitative extent.

The decision also confirms that, although the labour court’s investigative powers are broad, they cannot be used to compensate for a party’s evidentiary shortcomings. In the absence of specific allegations and witness evidence requests aimed at establishing specific historical facts, employees cannot discharge their burden of proving either the performance or the extent of overtime work.