Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elin Berglund seeks SEK 720 gross in additional wages from Kopparskeden Café AB. The parties agree that the hourly rate was SEK 180 and that Elin’s payslip lists 48 paid hours for the disputed month. Elin claims that she worked four additional hours, from 17:00 to 21:00, but was not paid for them. The café disputes that the hours were worked and asks that the claim be denied. 2. The parties have had a final opportunity to address the evidence. Elin’s final submission relies on the payslip and the text exchange. The café’s final submission accepts that the exchange shows a request and agreement to cover the shift, but maintains that it does not prove completion. The café says it has no further attendance record or witness available. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Elin has shown that she worked the four additional hours. If she has, the amount due follows from the agreed hourly rate. The supplied rules place the burden on the party seeking relief to point to specific facts, records, or testimony supporting the request. Rule 25 also directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records generally carry more weight than unsupported accounts, while the weight of a record depends on what it actually shows. Submissions of the parties 4. Elin asks for SEK 720 gross, subject to ordinary payroll deductions. Her side points to the payslip showing 48 paid hours at SEK 180 per hour and to the text exchange in which Oskar asks her to cover closing from 17:00 to 21:00, she agrees, and Oskar thanks her. Elin’s final submission says that the requested relief remains supported, but offers no additional shift-specific account or proof of attendance. 5. The café agrees that the hourly rate was SEK 180, that 48 hours were paid, and that the text exchange supports a request and agreement to work the closing shift. It argues that neither the exchange nor the payslip shows that Elin completed the shift. The café says its clock report records no work after 17:00 and that no further record or witness is available. It does not claim that it can prove Elin was absent. It also accepts that, if only some hours were established, any award should be limited to those hours at the agreed rate. Evidence and findings 6. The payslip is presented as a payment record and lists 48 paid hours at SEK 180 per hour. It establishes the hours paid and supports the conclusion that no additional hours were paid on that payslip. It does not establish whether additional hours were worked. The parties agree on the rate, so the calculation of four hours at that rate—SEK 720 gross—is clear if the hours are proven. 7. The text exchange is presented as a dated view on Elin’s phone with surrounding messages. It is strong evidence that Oskar asked Elin to cover the 17:00–21:00 closing shift and that she agreed. The café accepts that significance. The exchange contains no message confirming that Elin attended or completed the shift. Its reliability as evidence of the request and agreement does not make it proof of completion. 8. The café refers to a clock report recording no work after 17:00. The report is described in the submissions, but no separate clock-report exhibit is included in the supplied record. I therefore treat the café’s account of the report as relevant, but give it limited weight as a record not independently presented here. In any event, a lack of a clock entry is not necessarily conclusive proof that no work occurred. The payslip and the clock-report account are consistent with the café’s position, but neither alone resolves attendance. Reasons 9. Elin bears the burden of showing that the additional hours were worked. The text exchange is meaningful evidence: it makes the shift request and Elin’s agreement substantially more than a bare allegation. But the disputed fact is not whether the shift was offered or accepted; it is whether Elin attended and completed it. The exchange does not answer that question. 10. The payslip also does not fill that gap. It proves that 48 hours were paid, not that 52 hours were earned. Treating nonpayment as proof that the hours were worked would assume the very fact that must be established. The café’s clock-report account weighs against Elin, although its limited presentation means it is not decisive by itself. The café’s inability to prove absence does not transfer Elin’s burden to the café. 11. The record contains no direct account of Elin’s attendance or completion and no other presented evidence confirming that she worked the shift. The café has stated that no further witness or record is available, and Elin’s final submission adds no such proof. The remaining uncertainty is therefore not a reason to keep the hearing open; it is resolved under the supplied burden-of-proof rule. Elin has not established that she worked the four additional hours. 12. The café’s alternative position about a reduced award does not change the result. A proportional award would be appropriate only for hours shown to have been worked. The record does not establish any portion of the disputed shift as completed, so there is no proven amount to award. This conclusion does not find that Elin was absent; it finds only that the evidence does not meet her burden to establish the claimed work. Final order 13. Elin Berglund’s claim for SEK 720 gross in additional wages is denied. No additional wage payment is ordered. The parties’ agreement that the rate was SEK 180 per hour and that 48 hours were paid remains undisputed; this judgment decides only the claim for the four additional hours.