Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Denise Rolle asks for B$72 from Harbour Basket Supplies Ltd. for six hours at the shop on Saturday, 10 January 2026. She says the manager’s invitation asked her to help customers and that she did so while learning. Harbour Basket recorded the time as unpaid training. The parties agree that Denise attended for six hours and that the ordinary rate shown in the payroll record was B$12 per hour. Denise accepts that she received B$144 for twelve other ordinary hours. 2. The hearing record contains the signed attendance sheet and the weekly payroll record. The parties have had an opportunity to address those records and the uncertainty about the Saturday session. No further evidence is identified as obtainable, and adjournment is not allowed. The decision must therefore be made on the record as it stands. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Denise proved that the six hours were paid work rather than unpaid training. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Denise bears that burden. 4. The second issue is whether B$72 remains unpaid. Rule 25 requires a clear accounting of what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. The amount depends on the first issue: if the six hours were payable work at the established ordinary rate, six times B$12 equals B$72. Submissions of the parties 5. Denise submits that the signed attendance sheet confirms her six-hour presence and that the manager’s invitation asked her to help customers. She says she did help customers, and that learning while working did not make the time unpaid training. She acknowledges that the invitation did not expressly promise pay, that she did not ask about pay beforehand, and that no separate record or identified person confirms the customer-help tasks. She seeks only B$72. 6. Harbour Basket relies on the payroll record, which lists twelve ordinary hours at B$12 per hour and B$144 paid, and separately lists Saturday’s six hours as “training — B$0.” It accepts that the payroll record shows how the hours were accounted for, but not what activities took place. Harbour Basket has not provided a detailed account of the training or supporting training records or testimony. Evidence and findings 7. The attendance sheet is reliable evidence that Denise was at the shop from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on the stated Saturday: it records those times and bears her signature. It does not record the tasks she performed. Its pencilled “training” note is relevant, but its author and date are unknown. I give the note limited weight on the actual nature of the session. 8. The payroll record is a clear employer-generated record of the employer’s accounting. It supports the B$12 ordinary rate, the B$144 payment for twelve ordinary hours, and the employer’s treatment of Saturday as six hours of training at B$0. It does not establish that Denise agreed to unpaid time, nor does it independently prove what she did. Denise’s acceptance of the B$144 payment is consistent with the record. 9. Denise’s statements that the invitation asked her to help customers and that she did help them are direct accounts of her own experience. They are consistent across her submissions. But they remain uncorroborated in this record, and the attendance sheet does not confirm the tasks. The invitation itself is described in Denise’s submissions but is not presented as a document. I do not treat the allegation about its wording as independently established evidence. 10. Harbour Basket’s failure to explain the training or provide supporting evidence weakens its description of the session. That weakness does not, by itself, prove Denise’s account. The record leaves the purpose and activities of the session uncertain. Reasons 11. Rule 1 places the burden on Denise to establish the facts supporting her request. Rule 2 favors reliable records over vague accounts, but it does not make every record conclusive. Here, the attendance sheet proves presence, not work; the payroll record proves the employer’s classification, not the actual activities. Neither resolves the central factual question. 12. Denise’s account is specific and consistent, and I have considered it as evidence rather than dismissing it merely because it lacks a document. The employer’s unexplained training label is also weak. However, the invitation’s alleged wording is not independently documented, and no witness or other record confirms that Denise helped customers. On this record, I cannot find that the six hours were paid work rather than training. Since Denise bears the burden, that unresolved uncertainty means the issue is not proven. This finding does not amount to a finding that Harbour Basket’s training description is true; it means Denise has not established the fact necessary for her claim. 13. Under Rule 25, the accounting is clear: B$144 was paid for twelve ordinary hours, and Saturday’s six hours were entered at B$0. The ordinary rate is B$12, so B$72 is the correct arithmetic if those six hours were payable work. But the calculation alone does not establish that wages were owed. Because the work issue is not proven, Denise has not established an unpaid wage balance of B$72. Final order 14. The claim by Denise Rolle against Harbour Basket Supplies Ltd. for B$72 in wages is denied. No payment is ordered. The record establishes Denise’s six-hour attendance, the employer’s payroll treatment, the B$12 ordinary rate, and the B$144 payment for twelve other hours. It does not establish that the Saturday hours were paid work. This order resolves the claim on the evidence presented and does not find that the employer’s training classification was independently proven.