Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nele Hartwig seeks €96 gross from Falkenblatt Haushaltswaren GmbH, calculated as six Saturday hours at €16 per hour. She says the Saturday work was additional to her usual Wednesday shift. The employer disputes that characterization and says its revised roster planned a Wednesday-for-Saturday swap. The hearing is closed, and the claim is decided on the record presented. Issues for determination 2. The first issue is whether Nele proved that the six Saturday hours were additional work rather than a replacement for Wednesday hours. The burden is on the plaintiff under Rule 1: The Claim Needs Proof. 3. The second issue is whether Nele proved that €96 remains unpaid. The burden is also on the plaintiff. Rule 25: Pay Claims Need Clear Accounting directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff submits that Saturday was additional work and asks for payment of €96 gross. Her submissions refer to a saved message exchange in which Henrik requested Saturday coverage and Nele replied. They also describe a portal PDF listing six hours on both Wednesday and Saturday, with Nele’s employee number. 5. The defendant relies on the revised roster, which marks Nele off Wednesday and schedules her Saturday from 10:00 to 16:00. It argues that this supports a planned swap, while accepting that the roster does not show Nele agreed to the change or actually stayed home Wednesday. The defendant also accepts that it has no pay record or accounting showing whether the Saturday hours were paid. It asks that the claim be denied, or limited to any amount the evidence establishes was additional and unpaid. Evidence and findings 6. The revised roster is a presented exhibit. It shows the employer’s planned schedule: Wednesday off and Saturday scheduled for six hours. It has no acknowledgment by Nele and no record of when she saw the revision. It therefore supports the employer’s plan, but does not establish that Nele agreed to it or followed it. 7. Nele’s submission says she worked her usual Wednesday shift and was not told it was cancelled. The employer responds that it has no attendance record or firsthand account contradicting her. This is an attributed account in a submission, not a produced attendance record or admitted witness testimony. Still, it is not contradicted by the employer’s evidence. The roster alone cannot establish that Nele actually missed Wednesday. 8. The plaintiff describes a portal PDF listing six hours on both Wednesday and Saturday. The PDF itself is not in the record. The court therefore cannot verify its authenticity, exact entries, or context. The defendant says it cannot independently confirm the PDF or explain how the portal generated its entries. The plaintiff also refers to a saved message exchange, but that exchange was not presented. These descriptions are arguments about possible evidence, not the documents themselves. 9. The defendant states that it has no pay record or accounting showing whether the hours were paid. That admission establishes the absence of an identified employer accounting in this record. It does not establish that the hours were unpaid. No pay stub, bank record, or other payment evidence was presented. Reasons 10. On the first issue, the roster gives the defendant some support: the employer planned a swap. But the roster does not prove that the plan was communicated, accepted, or carried out. Nele’s account that she worked Wednesday is uncontradicted by any attendance record or firsthand account from the employer. The court therefore does not find that the roster proves she took Wednesday off. 11. That limitation does not, by itself, establish the plaintiff’s claim. Under Rule 1, Nele must point to specific facts or reliable records supporting the requested relief. The described portal PDF could have helped show hours recorded on both days, and the described message exchange could have helped explain why Saturday was worked. Neither was presented for assessment. The court cannot treat their described contents as established facts. On the complete record, the plaintiff has not proved that Saturday was additional work rather than a shift replacement. Issue one is not proven. 12. On the second issue, the calculation of €96 is clear as six hours multiplied by €16. But a correct calculation does not establish that the amount is owed. Rule 25 calls for a clear accounting of what was earned and paid. The employer’s lack of an accounting leaves payment uncertain; it does not shift the plaintiff’s burden or prove nonpayment. The record also does not establish that the six Saturday hours were additional hours for which separate wages were due. The plaintiff has not proved that €96 remains unpaid. Issue two is not proven. 13. The defendant’s request to reduce any award to an amount shown to be additional and unpaid does not produce a different result. No smaller amount is established by the evidence. The claim is therefore denied in full, not reduced to a partial award. This decision rests on the limits of the proof presented, not on a finding that Nele did not work Wednesday or that the employer’s roster proves she agreed to a swap. Final order 14. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for €96 gross in wages is denied. No payment is ordered. The denial reflects the plaintiff’s failure to prove on this record that the Saturday hours were additional work and that the claimed wages remain unpaid. No other relief is granted.