[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, electronic attendance records are managed by employers. If they are tampered with or deleted, workers can apply to the arbitration tribunal to order the employer to submit the original data. If the employer refuses to submit the data or submits false records, they shall bear adverse consequences in accordance with Articles 6 and 39 of the "Mediation and Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China on Labor Disputes" (effective May 1, 2008). The arbitration tribunal may presume that the worker's claims are valid according to law. Workers should immediately take screenshots of the attendance system, record the screen, and export backups, and form a chain of evidence with wage slips, overtime communication records, etc. They should apply for arbitration within one year from the date of their rights being infringed. For more details, please refer to the following link:Labor arbitration and legal services for work-related injury compensation.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

Electronic attendance tracking has become the core basis for determining overtime, attendance, and unused annual leave, while the system backend permissions and data modification logs are completely controlled by the employer. Typical scenarios include: when employees claim overtime pay, the attendance reports provided by the employer "coincidentally" lack the attendance records for the overtime day; in annual leave disputes, the employer's system shows that the leave has been taken, but the employees have never seen the approval process; before employees leave, their attendance accounts are cancelled and historical data "cannot be exported"; and the employer explains the incomplete records with excuses such as "attendance machine malfunction" and "data migration loss". When faced with tampered electronic records, panic is useless. The key is to immediately fix the current situation and use alternative evidence to restore the facts. For cases involving working hours determination in work-related injury identification, relevant evidence can be combined with the above-mentioned scenarios to determine the truth.Work-related injury compensation rights protection servicesHandle them together.

II. Key points of contention

The focus of the dispute lies in the authenticity of electronic attendance records and the burden of proof. Firstly, who controls the records: Attendance systems are usually purchased, managed, and exported by the employer, and the records belong to the employer, who has the obligation to explain the authenticity of the records. Secondly, whether the records have been tampered with: Workers need to initially point out the inconsistencies in the records (such as inconsistencies with payroll records, access control records, and work communication), and then the employer should explain the process of data generation and modification. If the employer cannot provide a reasonable explanation, the authenticity of the records will not be accepted. Thirdly, how to apply adverse consequences: If the employer refuses to submit the original attendance data within the specified time limit as ordered by the arbitration tribunal, or submits records that have been obviously modified, the employer shall bear adverse consequences according to law, and the arbitration tribunal may presume that the worker's claims of overtime and attendance are established. In the practice of labor arbitration in Beijing, the retrieval of electronic attendance data and the review of their authenticity have received increasing attention.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

In the case of Li ** represented by Attorney Feng Na, the attendance and leave records were one of the key factors in the outcome. On November 17, 2022, Li ** was employed by Beijing A Technology Co., Ltd. The labor contract stipulated a base salary of 35,000 yuan per month plus a performance-based salary of 5,000 yuan per quarter. The offer letter stated an annual salary of 550,000 yuan, including a performance bonus of 110,000 yuan. On March 19, 2025, A Company terminated the labor contract on the grounds of "economic layoffs" and paid Li ** an economic compensation of 9,028 yuan. Li ** claimed that the layoff had not been reported to the labor administrative department in accordance with the law and was an illegal termination, and that the performance bonus should be paid according to the offer letter. After the case entered arbitration and litigation, the calculation of unpaid annual leave wages directly depended on the attendance and leave records. A Company only recognized that Li ** had three days of unpaid annual leave remaining and claimed to calculate the amount based on this, amounting to 10,146.28 yuan. Attorney Feng Na guided the client to comprehensively fix the annual leave records, record the communication with HR about the performance bonus, and collect evidence such as the labor contract, pay slips, and termination notices, using a complete chain of evidence to counter the company's unilateral statements about the records. On April 10, 2025, Li ** applied for arbitration to the Beijing Chaoyang District Labor and Personnel Dispute Arbitration Committee. The arbitration committee ruled that Li ** should be paid 18,602 yuan in unpaid annual leave wages and 91,821 yuan in compensation for illegal termination. After the case was litigated to the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court, the first-instance court, based on the evidence and statements provided by both parties, confirmed that Li ** had three days of unpaid annual leave remaining from 2024 to 2025, ruling that A Company had failed to complete the statutory pre-layoff procedures and was an illegal termination, and ordering the payment of 260,143.69 yuan in annual performance bonuses and 137,726.7 yuan in compensation for illegal termination. This case shows that the records provided by the company alone cannot be directly equated with the actual situation. Whether the evidence chain is complete is the key to the determination. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm. 冯娜律师代理的李某某案中，考勤与休假记录就是胜负关键之一。2022年11月17日，李某某入职北京A科技有限公司，劳动合同约定基础工资35000元/月，绩效工资5000元/季，offer载明年薪55万元、含年度绩效奖金11万元。2025年3月19日，A公司以“经济性裁员”为由解除劳动合同并支付经济补偿92008元；李某某主张裁员未依法向劳动行政部门报告、属违法解除，并应按offer支付绩效奖金。案件进入仲裁、诉讼后，未休年休假工资的核算直接取决于考勤与休假记录：A公司仅认可李某某剩余3天未休年休假，主张按此核算10146.28元。冯娜律师指导当事人完整固定年休假记录、与人事沟通绩效奖金的录音、劳动合同、工资流水、解除通知等证据，以完整证据链对冲单位对记录的单方陈述。2025年4月10日，李某某向北京市朝阳区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会申请仲裁，仲裁委裁决支付未休年休假工资18602元、违法解除赔偿金差额91821元；双方诉至北京市朝阳区人民法院后，一审法院根据双方举证和陈述核算，确认2024年至2025年李某某合计剩余3天未休年休假，按法定标准判令支付未休年休假工资12675.02元，同时认定A公司裁员未完成法定前置程序、属违法解除，判令支付年度绩效奖金260143.69元、违法解除赔偿金差额137726.7元。本案表明：单位单方出示的记录不能直接等同于事实，证据链是否完整才是认定关键。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Feng NaThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202211562923, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis includes Article 6 and Article 39 of the Mediation and Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China on Labor Disputes (effective May 1, 2008); Article 6 of the Interim Regulations on Wage Payment, which requires employers to record wage payment information in writing and keep it for more than two years for reference; Articles 93 and 95 of the Supreme People's Court's Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings (effective May 1, 2020), which stipulate that the authenticity of electronic data shall be reviewed in light of the integrity of the environment in which it is generated, stored, and transmitted. If a party refuses to submit evidence without a valid reason, the claim may be deemed established. Practical suggestions: Regularly export personal attendance and salary details after employment and keep them; if any abnormal records are found, take screenshots and record the time on the same day; verify overtime and vacation arrangements with the employer through email or office systems to form written records; export and confirm historical data before leaving the job; after a dispute arises, apply in writing to the arbitration tribunal to order the employer to submit the original back-end data and modification logs. If the employer is suspected of falsifying evidence, legal action can be taken accordingly.Criminal defense and criminal case filing servicesEvaluate the legal risks.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The electronic attendance system is not equivalent to the actual situation. For employees: When it comes to attendance and approval records involving overtime pay, annual leave, and sick leave wages, it's important to develop the habit of exporting and backing up these records regularly. Statements provided by the employer alone cannot be used as the basis for making a final determination. For employers: Tampering with attendance data may bring short-term benefits, but if it's found that the data has been altered or if the employer refuses to submit the records, they will not only face losing the case, but may also be fined or detained. After a dispute arises, both parties should preserve the original state of the system. Any "technical processing" of the data could be used against them. If you need guidance on evidence collection, please contact us.Beijing Henglu Law FirmThe labor law team intervened.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the attendance records are tampered with, can I win the arbitration case?

There is room for negotiation, but the key lies in whether it is possible to point out the contradictions in the records and prompt the arbitration tribunal to investigate them. The attendance system is managed by the employer. According to Article 39 of the "Mediation and Arbitration Law for Labor Disputes", the arbitration tribunal may require the employer to submit the original data within a specified time limit. If the records submitted by the employer are obviously inconsistent with the payroll records, access control records, and work communication, and the employer cannot explain the reasons for the modification, the authenticity of the records will not be accepted. The employer will bear adverse consequences, and the arbitration tribunal may presume that the worker's claims of overtime and attendance are established. If the worker only has unilateral statements and lacks any alternative evidence, the claim may also not be supported due to insufficient evidence. The outcome depends on the evidence of the entire case, and no lawyer can guarantee victory or defeat on their own.

Q2: If the attendance records have been tampered with, what evidence do I need to prepare?

The key evidence to collect includes four categories: 1. Evidence documenting anomalies, such as screenshots of the attendance system, screen recordings, data exported from the system backend, attendance reports issued by the employer, and comparison statements that contradict actual circumstances. 2. Objective trace evidence, including bank account statements showing whether overtime pay was issued, access control or surveillance records, transportation reimbursement receipts, the sending times of work emails and instant messages, and meeting minutes. 3. Communication evidence, such as chat records, emails, and audio recordings of conversations with supervisors and HR departments regarding overtime and vacation requests. 4. Evidence of exercising rights, including letters demanding that the employer provide original records and proof of delivery. The more complete the evidence is, the stronger the case will be in proving that the records were tampered with.

Q3: How are the attorney's fees and arbitration fees charged in such cases?

Labor arbitration is free of charge. The attorney's fees are determined through negotiation between the law firm and the client, based on the amount of the claim, the stage of the proceedings, and the workload. Fees are typically charged on a per-case basis or in stages, with no standardized rates; those who meet the eligibility criteria can apply for legal aid. In litigation cases, a fee of ten yuan is charged per labor dispute case, with the losing party bearing the cost. If the claim for overtime pay is successful, the claimant may also claim reasonable legal defense costs if eligible. It is recommended to clarify the fee items, stages, and refund conditions with the law firm before entrusting them with the case, and to conduct a rational assessment of the expected claim amount and costs.

Q4: How long does it take from arbitration to getting the result?

The arbitration tribunal generally concludes the case within 45 days from the date of acceptance, and the time limit for complex cases can be extended by no more than 15 days with approval; where appraisal, audit, or public service delivery are required, the time period will be extended accordingly. For cases where the parties appeal against the arbitral award, the first-instance ordinary procedure shall be concluded within six months and the summary procedure within three months, and the second-instance procedure shall generally be concluded within three months. For cases involving the retrieval of back-end data and authenticity appraisal of attendance evidence, the time period will be even longer. Overall, simple cases can be decided in a few months, while complex cases involving the review of the authenticity of electronic data may take more than a year. It is recommended to fix the evidence as soon as possible and initiate the procedure in a timely manner.

Q5: If you find that your attendance records have been tampered with, what should you do specifically?

Four steps to deal with the situation: First, immediately fix the current situation by taking comprehensive screenshots and video recordings of the attendance system, exporting personal details and raw data, and marking the export time. If necessary, obtain notarization. Second, file a written objection by sending a letter to the unit's HR department or responsible person, pointing out the abnormal records and demanding the provision of backend raw data and modification logs. Keep a record of the delivery. Third, supplement with alternative evidence by organizing pay slips, access control surveillance footage, and work communication records to form a complete proof of overtime and attendance. Fourth, apply for arbitration within the one-year statute of limitations and request the unit in writing to submit the attendance data in its possession. If the unit refuses to submit the data, request that the claims be presumed valid according to law.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The adjudication standards 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 evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Labor arbitration legal services·Attorney Feng Na·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and public 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.