[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it's not necessarily the case that approval is the only prerequisite for paying overtime. In practice, many employers stipulate in their rules and regulations that "overtime must be approved", and use this as a pretext to refuse to pay unapproved overtime. However, the payment of overtime is based on the fact that the worker actually provided overtime labor, and the overtime was arranged or tacitly approved by the employer. If the worker has attendance records, shift schedules, work communication records, task arrangements, and work results, etc., which can prove that they did indeed provide labor outside of the legal working hours and that the employer was aware of or benefited from it, then even if the approval procedures were not followed, it may still be determined that overtime occurred. Of course, if the employer has a legal and effective overtime approval system and has informed the worker, it will generally be more difficult to determine that the worker extended their working hours without approval as overtime. Therefore, the approval system may affect the determination result, but it is not the decisive sole criterion. Facts and evidence are still of crucial importance.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

"There's no overtime pay if there's no overtime approval process" is a common defense argument used by employers and a major challenge for workers to protect their rights. There are four typical scenarios: First, the employer has an overtime approval system, but in practice, supervisors arrange overtime verbally and never follow the formal process; Second, employees submit approval requests that are rejected or delayed, but are still required to work overtime; Third, the employer denies the fact of overtime on the grounds of "lack of approval", while attendance records and work logs show that the employee was on duty for a long time; Fourth, although the employer has an approval system, it has never publicized or informed workers about it. In Beijing, employers' management systems are relatively standardized, but whether the approval system is legal and effective, and whether it is actually implemented, directly affects the determination of overtime facts.

II. Key points of contention

First, the effectiveness of the overtime approval system: whether it is formulated through democratic procedures and publicly disclosed to workers. Second, whether overtime can be recognized in the absence of approval but with other evidence. Third, the determination of overtime in cases where approval is denied or delayed. Fourth, the probative force of attendance records and work results. Fifth, whether the unit can use the system as a defense when it has long tolerated overtime without approval. Sixth, the allocation of the burden of proof and the assumption of adverse consequences.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

When handling such disputes, Henglu Law Firm typically analyzes them from two perspectives: "system effectiveness" and "fact determination". Regarding system effectiveness, the employer's rules and regulations should serve as management guidelines and generally be formulated through democratic procedures and publicly disclosed or notified to employees. Approval systems that have not been publicly disclosed are unlikely to bind employees. As for fact determination, courts and arbitration institutions pay more attention to whether the employee actually provided overtime labor and whether the employer arranged, was aware of, or benefited from it. If evidence such as attendance records, access control data, work group messages, task assignments, and result deliveries can corroborate each other, overtime may be deemed established even without written approval. Conversely, if the employer can prove that there is a clear, public, and long-term implemented approval system, and the employee should have known about it but failed to follow the process, this will form a strong defense against unapproved overtime claims. It should be emphasized that the employer cannot, on the one hand, continuously assign excessive tasks and tacitly allow employees to work overtime for a long time, and on the other hand, deny the fact of overtime by claiming "no approval". Such a defense is usually difficult to succeed. Therefore, both parties should pay attention to the standardization of evidence and systems.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: 1. Find out whether the unit has an overtime approval system and whether it has been publicly announced and communicated to employees. 2. Submit overtime applications in accordance with the established procedures and keep records of the submission and approval process. 3. Save attendance records, access control logs, and messages from work groups and task delivery records to form a chain of evidence. 4. If the approval is denied but the employee is still required to work overtime, ensure to retain evidence of the unit's demands. 5. When claiming overtime pay, pay attention to the arbitration time limit and the calculation base. 6. Employers should improve their systems to ensure that they are legal, implemented consistently, and leave complete records. For labor disputes, you can refer to the relevant provisions.Labor Arbitration | Work-Related Injury CompensationFor reference, you can check the services related to corporate regulations and employment complianceIntellectual Property Protection | Corporate Legal ServicesPlate. Legal basis: Article 44 of the Labor Law of the People's Republic of China (implemented in 1994 and amended) on the payment standards for overtime wages; the relevant provisions on rules and regulations and labor compensation in the Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2012 and implemented on July 1, 2013). The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations and judicial rulings.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, approval is not the only prerequisite. Facts and evidence are more crucial. Secondly, an unpublicized approval system makes it difficult to constrain workers. Thirdly, it's important to follow the procedures and keep application records to reduce disputes. Fourthly, if the employer has long tolerated overtime work, the defense of "no approval" will be hard to hold water. Fifthly, it's necessary to claim overtime pay in a timely manner and pay attention to the arbitration time limit. For disputes involving overtime approval, you can resort to the following methods:Labor arbitration | Work-related injury compensationWe can provide a comprehensive solution for services, which includes compliance with regulations and other related matters.Intellectual Property Protection | Corporate Legal AffairsFor reference, you can check the relevant clauses regarding the performance of labor contractsBusiness and Commerce | Contract Disputes板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If there's no approval process, does that mean there's no overtime pay?

Not necessarily. The core of overtime pay is whether the worker actually provided overtime labor as arranged or tacitly approved by the employer. If the worker can provide evidence such as attendance records, task arrangements, work results, and communication records to prove the fact of overtime, and the employer is aware of or benefits from it, even if the overtime has not gone through the approval procedures, it may still be regarded as overtime and support the claim for overtime pay. The approval system is just one of the influencing factors.

Q2: The unit's system stipulates that approval is required. Is this valid and effective?

There are certain conditions that need to be met. The employer's rules and regulations, which serve as the basis for management, should generally be formulated through democratic procedures and be publicized or notified to workers. If the procedures of the system are legal, the content is reasonable, and it has been publicized to workers, it will have a strong impact on the determination of overtime; if it has never been publicized or notified, workers can claim that the system is not binding on them, thus not affecting the determination of the fact of overtime.

Q3: Does it still count as overtime if the approval is rejected?

It might count. If the employer refuses to approve overtime work but still requires or tacitly allows workers to work overtime, and the workers have actually provided overtime labor, then the fact of overtime work still exists in this case, and the employer cannot deny it on the grounds of "not having been approved". At this time, it is important to preserve evidence of the employer's request for overtime work, such as supervisor's instructions, messages in the work group, and the delivery time of tasks, etc.

Q4: Can attendance checking replace approval procedures?

It cannot completely replace other evidence, but it can help to prove the case. Attendance records can prove that the worker's working hours have been extended, which is an important basis for determining overtime; however, attendance records alone may not be sufficient to prove that the worker has provided effective labor of a working nature. If attendance records can be combined with task arrangements, delivery of results, and evidence of the employer's knowledge of the situation, a complete chain of evidence can be formed, and the likelihood of a successful determination will be significantly increased.

Q5: Is there a statute of limitations for claiming overtime pay?

Yes. The statute of limitations for applying for labor arbitration is generally one year, calculated from the date when the applicant knows or should have known that his/her rights have been infringed; if a dispute arises during the existence of the labor relationship due to arrears in labor remuneration, it is not subject to the one-year statute of limitations. However, if the labor relationship terminates, the applicant shall file a claim within one year from the date of termination. It is recommended to collect evidence before leaving the job and assert rights in accordance with the law as soon as possible.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

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

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is provided 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. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.