Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Eleni Vardaki brings this employment payment claim against Stavros Delis, seeking €240 for her final shifts at Cup & Crumb in Thessaloniki. The parties agree that she earned €240. Their dispute is whether Stavros paid that amount in cash. 2. The record includes a handwritten final-shift wage calculation, presented as exhibit-2-e1 and again as exhibit-6-e1. Both entries describe the same calculation and are not separate proof of payment. The record also includes the parties’ submissions about an unsigned cashbook entry. No separate receipt, signature, or witness confirming delivery has been produced. Both parties have had an opportunity to make final submissions, and no further proof is offered. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Eleni earned €240 and whether she proved that the €240 remained unpaid. Under Rule 25, the court considers what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the claim with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 2 directs attention to the reliability of records while leaving their weight to be assessed in context. Submissions of the parties 4. Eleni asks for payment of the full €240. She relies on the shift sheet and says she did not sign for or receive cash. She argues that the absence of a signature, receipt, or money transfer supports her account. She also says she had no earlier paycheck problems, but offers no separate record or testimony establishing that history. 5. Stavros agrees that Eleni earned €240 and that the shift sheet establishes the amount, not payment. He says his cashbook records the wages as paid and supports his account that he paid her in cash. He acknowledges that he made the entry and that it is unsigned, with no separate receipt, signature, or witness confirming delivery. He asks the court not to treat the wage calculation as proof that the wages remained unpaid. Evidence and findings 6. The court finds that Eleni earned €240. The handwritten shift sheet lists that total, and Stavros expressly agrees with the calculation and that the wages were earned. This issue is established by exhibit-2-e1 and exhibit-6-e1, together with statement-2. There is no material dispute about the amount earned. 7. The shift sheet contains no acknowledgment of payment. That fact establishes that this particular record does not document payment; it does not establish that payment did not occur. Eleni’s denial is relevant evidence, as is Stavros’s account and the cashbook entry he says he made. The entry supports Stavros’s account, but its unsigned and self-recorded nature, and the absence of independent confirmation, limit its weight. The court does not treat it as conclusive proof of delivery. 8. Eleni’s submissions identify the missing signature and receipt, but those absences do not independently establish that cash was not handed over. Conversely, Stavros’s cashbook entry does not independently establish that it was. The record therefore leaves the payment question uncertain. The court does not convert either party’s assertion into an established fact. Reasons 9. The burden of proving the claim for payment rests on Eleni, who seeks relief. She has established the wage amount, but she must also establish that the amount remains unpaid. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned and paid; Rule 1 requires supporting proof for the requested relief. Rule 2 supports giving weight to records, but does not make an incomplete or disputed record conclusive. 10. The shift sheet is persuasive proof of the amount earned because both parties accept it. It is not proof of nonpayment: it records no payment either way. Eleni’s denial is direct evidence of her account, but the record provides no additional independent evidence resolving the conflict. Her argument that a signature would normally have been obtained is an inference, not proof that no cash was delivered. The court cannot assume a payment practice that the record does not establish. 11. Stavros’s cashbook entry and account provide some support for payment, but their limitations matter. He made the entry himself, and he candidly acknowledges that no receipt, signature, or witness confirms delivery. The court therefore does not find payment established as a fact. However, Eleni retains the burden of proving nonpayment; the weakness of Stavros’s proof does not transfer that burden to him. 12. On the whole record, the evidence does not establish that the €240 remained unpaid. The uncertainty is material and must be resolved against the party bearing the burden on that issue. This conclusion does not find that Stavros proved payment; it finds that Eleni did not prove the condition necessary for an order requiring payment. No further obtainable proof has been offered, and the matter is ready for decision. Final order 13. The court finds that Eleni Vardaki earned €240 in wages. Her claim that the wages remain unpaid is not proven. The request for an order requiring Stavros Delis to pay €240 is denied, and no payment is ordered. The claim is dismissed. This judgment decides only the claim and evidence presented in this hearing; it makes no finding that the cash was in fact delivered.