Uppsala tingsrätt denies café worker’s SEK 720 wage claim for disputed closing shift

Uppsala tingsrätt denied Elin Berglund’s claim for SEK 720 gross in unpaid wages from Kopparskeden Café AB. She sought payment for four additional closing hours at the agreed rate of SEK 180 an hour, subject to ordinary payroll deductions. No additional payment was ordered.

The dispute turned on the difference between agreeing to work a shift and proving that it was worked. Messages established that Elin had accepted a request to cover closing from 17:00 to 21:00, but the court found that the evidence did not establish attendance or completion.

The court treated the text exchange as strong evidence of the request and acceptance. Its reliability on those points, however, did not make it evidence that Elin completed the shift: there was no message confirming attendance or completion.

The payslip established that 48 hours had been paid at SEK 180 an hour. It did not show that 52 hours had been earned. Using the absence of additional payment to prove that more work had occurred would assume the disputed fact rather than establish it.

The café also referred to a clock report showing no recorded work after 17:00. Because no separate clock-report exhibit was presented, the court gave that account limited weight. It also recognised that a missing clock entry does not necessarily mean no work occurred.

The decisive gap was the absence of a direct account or other presented evidence confirming the work. Elin bore the burden of establishing the additional hours; the café’s inability to prove her absence did not shift that burden. Nor could the court award a smaller amount, because no portion of the disputed shift had been established as completed.

Elin’s side relied on the payslip and the closing-cover messages, arguing that the evidence supported payment of the four hours. Her position was that she stayed after her scheduled shift but forgot to clock in again.

The café accepted the hourly rate, the payment of 48 hours and the agreement to cover closing. It argued that the documents did not bridge the gap between accepting the shift and completing it. It acknowledged that it could not prove Elin was absent and had no further attendance record or witness to offer.

Alternatively, the café submitted that any payment should be confined to hours actually established, at the agreed rate and subject to ordinary payroll deductions.

The dispute arose from a morning text exchange in which Oskar asked Elin to cover closing from 17:00 to 21:00. She agreed, and he thanked her. Elin maintained that the month’s payslip should therefore have recorded 52 hours rather than 48.

The judgment resolves only the claim for those four additional hours. It does not establish that Elin was absent, and it leaves the agreed hourly rate and the 48 paid hours untouched. The distinction is narrow but consequential: insufficient proof of work is not a finding that the work never happened.