Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Bethany Cole asks for £96 from Brindle Homeware Ltd for six extra hours of work, calculated at £16 per hour. Brindle accepts that the records show six extra hours and that they were unpaid, but disputes that they were authorised paid work. 2. The hearing record includes the parties’ submissions and a signed employment terms sheet presented as exhibits 3, 5, and 7. Those exhibits contain the same terms: the hourly rate is £16; additional hours must be approved by the shop manager; and employees are asked to use an approval form before working extra time. The terms do not say that the form is the only way approval can be given. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Bethany worked six unpaid hours worth £96, and whether she proved that the extra work was approved as required by the signed terms. Bethany bears the burden of supporting her request with evidence. Rule 25, Pay Claims Need Clear Accounting, directs attention to what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. Rule 1 likewise requires the party seeking relief to support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Submissions of the parties 4. Bethany says her manager told her to finish the stock count, and she understood that instruction as approval to stay and complete the work. She relies on the attendance and payroll records for the six hours and on the signed terms for the hourly rate. She acknowledges that the record contains no written or independent proof of the manager’s words and that the instruction, as she describes it, did not specify six hours. She asks for £96. 5. Brindle says the records show no approval was recorded and that attendance proves presence, not authorised paid work. It relies on the approval requirement and the request to use a form. Brindle also argues that the form was the only approval method, but the signed terms do not expressly say that. Brindle says it does not know whether the manager authorised the hours and identifies no witness or other evidence establishing that the manager did not give an instruction. Evidence and findings 6. The parties’ submissions agree that the records show six extra hours and that those hours were unpaid. The signed terms, presented in exhibits 3, 5, and 7, state the rate of £16 per hour. I find that Bethany worked six unpaid hours and that the arithmetic value at the stated rate is £96. This establishes the hours and amount, but not by itself the right to payment under the approval condition. 7. Bethany’s account that the manager told her to finish the stock count is evidence in support of her claim, but it is an attributed account in a submission, not a produced message or independent witness account. I do not treat the absence of a document as proof that no instruction occurred. Equally, the account does not establish what precise words were used or that the manager approved six extra hours. The record contains no approval form or other recorded approval; the parties’ submissions agree that approval was not recorded. 8. The signed terms require manager approval and ask staff to use a form. The terms support Brindle’s position that approval was required, but do not establish Brindle’s further assertion that approval could only be given through that form. I therefore do not find that the form was the exclusive method. Nor does the record establish that the manager did not give an instruction. The question is whether Bethany has shown that the work was approved, not whether Brindle has disproved her account. Reasons 9. The hours-and-amount issue is established. The records, as described and accepted by both sides, show six hours worked and unpaid. The signed terms establish the rate. Rule 25 supports using that clear accounting, and the calculation is six multiplied by £16, or £96. 10. The approval issue is not proven. The signed terms make manager approval a condition for additional hours. Bethany’s account is relevant and consistent with her explanation for staying to finish the stock count. But the account is unsupported by a message, form, or independent evidence, and it does not show that the manager approved the full six hours. Under Rule 1, Bethany must provide enough support for the condition on which her request depends. The record’s silence about approval, together with the limited detail of her account, leaves that burden unmet. 11. Brindle’s argument succeeds only to that extent. The missing approval record supports the conclusion that approval was not documented; it does not prove that no oral or other approval occurred. Brindle’s claim that the form was the only permitted method fails because the signed terms do not say so. But Bethany still bears the burden, and rejecting Brindle’s exclusive-form argument does not supply the missing proof of approval. Rule 2 gives written records particular weight, while the absence of such a record is not conclusive against Bethany. On the whole record, the approval requirement remains unproven. 12. The result does not rest on any finding that Bethany did not work the hours or that the £96 calculation is wrong. It rests on the unresolved approval condition and Bethany’s burden to establish it. No further obtainable proof has been identified in the closing record, and an adjournment is not available. The claim can therefore be decided on the evidence presented. Final order 13. Bethany Cole’s claim for £96 is denied because she has not proven that the six extra hours were approved as required by the signed terms. No payment is ordered. The finding that six hours were worked unpaid at the stated rate, worth £96, remains established, but it does not result in an award because approval was not proven.