[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, enterprises can conduct cross-examination from three dimensions: authenticity, integrity, and relevance. Regarding authenticity, review the source of the chat records, the ownership of the account, and whether the export method is standardized. If necessary, apply for electronic data appraisal. Regarding integrity, review whether there are deletions, splicing, or selective extraction, and require the other party to provide the complete dialogue and original carriers. Regarding relevance, review whether the content of the records can directly prove the fact of overtime work, such as whether it belongs to the work arrangement, whether it was actually carried out, and whether it has been approved. According to the "Mediation and Arbitration Law of Labor Disputes of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on May 1, 2008), in the event of labor disputes, the parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for the claims they put forward; the evidence related to the disputed matters is in the possession and management of the employer, and the employer shall provide it; if the employer fails to provide it, it shall bear the adverse consequences. Therefore, enterprises should actively submit attendance records, approval processes, access control and system logs, work results and performance records, etc., to form a chain of refutation of the fact of overtime work.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In labor disputes, workers often submit chat records as evidence when claiming overtime pay. Typical situations include: screenshots only preserving favorable fragments and lacking context; records showing that the messages were sent during non-working hours, but the workers did not actually work; disputes over account ownership, making it difficult to prove the identities of the parties involved in the conversation; content being casual chatter between colleagues rather than work instructions; and enterprises lacking standardized attendance and overtime approval systems, making it difficult to provide evidence. In arbitration and judicial practice in Beijing, the review of electronic data is becoming increasingly strict, focusing not only on the content but also on the source and completeness of the data. If enterprises pay attention to keeping records of their employment management on a regular basis, they will be able to respond calmly when disputes arise.

II. Key points of contention

First, how to determine the authenticity of the chat records and how to prove the ownership of the account. Second, the integrity requirements of electronic data and whether it is necessary to provide the original carrier. Third, how to allocate the burden of proof for the fact of overtime work. Fourth, whether the attendance and approval records held by the company must be provided. Fifth, whether the chat records alone can determine the duration of overtime work. Sixth, the legal consequences of forging evidence. These issues determine the direction of the dispute.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Law Firm

Henglue Lawyers suggest that enterprises respond in three layers: "Cross-examination + Counter-evidence + System". **First layer: Cross-examination**. Focus on questioning the three aspects of evidence: 1. **Authenticity**: Point out that the screenshots have unclear sources, lack original carriers, and cannot be traced back to specific accounts. If necessary, apply for forensic examination. 2. **Integrity**: Highlight that the content has been selectively截取 (extracted) and lacks context. Require the provision of complete records. 3. **Relevance**: Point out that the chat content cannot prove actual labor provision or constitutes non-work communication. **Second layer: Counter-evidence**. Proactively submit attendance records, overtime approval forms, access control and system login logs, task assignment and delivery records, performance evaluations, and salary payment details held by the enterprise to refute overtime claims. **Third layer: System**. Improve and implement overtime approval and attendance systems, clarify the need for overtime approval, adjustment rules, and overtime pay calculation rules to reduce disputes at the source. It is important to emphasize that evidence related to disputes is held by the employer, who should provide it. Refusing to do so may result in adverse consequences, so enterprises cannot passively respond to litigation but should actively present evidence. In labor dispute cases, Henglue Lawyers typically systematically sort through employment materials during the evidentiary period and submit written cross-examination opinions on the authenticity, integrity, and relevance of the opposing party's evidence. If necessary, they apply for electronic data forensic examination or request access to backend records.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action recommendations: First, after receiving the arbitration materials, check the carrier and source of the other party's evidence; Second, retrieve and submit counter-evidence such as attendance records, approval documents, access control logs, and system logs; Third, apply for electronic data appraisal if necessary; Fourth, improve the overtime approval and attendance system and keep the relevant records for archiving. For related services, please refer to the following link:Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensationAndIntellectual property protection and corporate lawColumn. Legal basis: The provisions on the burden of proof in the "Mediation and Arbitration Law of Labor Disputes of the People's Republic of China" (effective May 1, 2008), and the provisions on working hours and overtime pay in the "Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China" (amended in 2012 and effective July 1, 2013). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, enterprises cannot adopt a passive approach to litigation and should actively provide evidence of management. Secondly, the review of electronic data emphasizes the original carriers and integrity, and screenshots often need to be supplemented. Thirdly, a well-developed overtime approval system is the fundamental way to prevent disputes. Fourthly, if the other party's evidence may be forged, the enterprise can apply for appraisal according to law and explain the reasons. For more information on litigation strategies for labor disputes, please contact us via the following link:Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensationAndIntellectual property protection and corporate lawFor column consultation, please contact us.Beijing Henglu Law Firm.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can the chat records submitted by employees be falsified?

There is a possibility of data being modified or selectively extracted, so the review focuses on the original carrier, account ownership, and content integrity. Enterprises can require the other party to present the original equipment or the complete conversation, and apply for electronic data appraisal if necessary. If the evidence is just a printed screenshot that cannot be verified, its probative value will be questioned, but it still needs to be judged comprehensively in conjunction with other evidence.

Q2: Who should provide evidence of overtime work?

When workers claim overtime pay, they should first provide preliminary evidence of the existence of overtime work. However, if the relevant evidence is in the employer's possession and management, the employer should provide it. Failure to do so may result in adverse consequences. Therefore, enterprises should actively submit attendance records, approval documents, and work records to form a complete chain of rebuttal, rather than simply defending with the argument that "the party who makes the claim must provide the evidence".

Q3: What counter-evidence should enterprises prepare?

You can prepare attendance records, overtime approval forms, access control and system login logs, email and task distribution records, delivery times of work results, performance and salary payment details, etc., to prove the actual arrangement of working hours and whether the overtime has been approved. The evidence should be true and complete, mutually corroborating, and submitted within the evidence-presentation period.

Q4: What should we do if the system is not perfect?

It is necessary to improve the overtime approval and attendance system as soon as possible, clarify that overtime must be approved, the calculation and application process of overtime pay and compensatory leave, and implement it through training and systems. For disputes that have already occurred, evidence can still be provided based on the nature of the position, the work results, and industry practices. Improving the system can not only reduce disputes, but also enhance the ability to provide evidence in disputes.

Q5: What are the consequences of forging evidence?

Anyone who forges or destroys important evidence and obstructs the people's court in trying cases may be fined or detained; if the circumstances are serious, they will be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law. Those who submit false evidence in arbitration may also bear adverse consequences. If an enterprise finds that the other party's evidence may be forged, it may explain the situation to the arbitration institution or the court and apply for appraisal, and the case-handling organ will deal with it in accordance with the law.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretation in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials to avoid missing the statutory time limit.Labor arbitration legal services·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.