[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, it can be, and is the core evidence in disputes over overtime pay. Electronic attendance (attendance systems, DingTalk, WeCom, and access control data) are electronic data evidence. If it is legally obtained, its content is true, and it is relevant to the case, it can be admitted as evidence. There are three key points in practice: the employer should keep complete attendance records, and those who refuse to submit them will bear unfavorable consequences; the original system data has higher evidentiary value than the summary tables prepared afterwards; and the fixed data exported before leaving the job can be used to apply for an investigation order or evidence preservation during arbitration.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

When claiming overtime pay, the company just dismisses the claim with the excuse, "We don't recognize the screenshots you took yourself" — the battle over the probative force of electronic attendance records is the deciding factor in overtime pay cases. Many employees lose the case not because they didn't work overtime, but because they failed to properly document the evidence before leaving the company.

II. Key points of dispute

First, the evidentiary attributes and evidentiary value of electronic attendance records. Second, the allocation of the burden of proof for overtime work: whoever holds the evidence, submits it. Third, the confrontation between unilaterally produced attendance records and original data. Fourth, technical actions for evidence collection and preservation.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The first layer concerns the attributes of evidence: electronic data is a legally recognized type of evidence. Examples include backend records of attendance systems, data from the attendance modules of DingTalk and WeCom, and access control card records. As long as the evidence is obtained legally, its content is authentic, and it is relevant to the disputed facts, it is considered admissible. The evidentiary weight follows a hierarchy: the original data in the system backend (exported files and screenshots of backend pages) holds the highest evidentiary value; real-time screenshots on mobile devices (with time and interface information) come next; and manually compiled summary tables hold the weakest evidentiary value—especially attendance sheets created unilaterally by the company and not signed by employees, which are almost always deemed inadmissible against the original data. The second layer involves the benefits of the burden of proof rule: the judicial interpretation establishes that the worker bears the burden of proof for the existence of overtime, but if the worker provides evidence showing that the employer possesses evidence of the overtime, and the employer fails to provide such evidence, the employer must bear the adverse consequences. Electronic attendance records precisely constitute "evidence controlled by the employer": after the worker submits preliminary evidence such as attendance screenshots, shift scheduling notifications, and overtime approval records, the arbitration tribunal and court can order the company to provide complete attendance records. If the company refuses to submit them or submits records with obvious signs of tampering, the worker's claims are presumed to be valid—this rule is the most powerful leverage for workers in overtime pay cases. The third layer involves a checklist for evidence collection and preservation: before leaving the company (or when disputes first arise), export attendance records—print them with headers and page numbers, and capture screenshots and interface information simultaneously. For important cases, notarize DingTalk and WeCom attendance data or apply for evidence preservation during the arbitration stage. Obtaining evidence: after initiating arbitration, request an investigation order or request the arbitration tribunal to order the company to submit the records. Evidence reinforcement: combine attendance records with pay slips (showing whether overtime pay was included), corroborating witness statements, and chat records from work groups (evidence of late-night messages and task assignments). Cross-corroboration of these four types of evidence firmly establishes the overtime fact. In Beijing, arbitration tribunals and courts generally accept electronic attendance records and are increasingly scrutinizing defenses based on "employer's failure to sign and receive the records." The integrity of the original data (export time and system watermarks) is valued more highly than signed documents.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to fix it early: Export and back up the original attendance data as soon as the dispute arises; The second step is to combine the evidence: Four types of evidence, including attendance records, pay slips, group messages, and witness statements; The third step is to use rules: Claim that the company controls the attendance records and request an order to submit them; The fourth step is to keep the originals: Save both the original carriers and the exported files, and do not just keep forwarded messages. Main legal basis: The provisions on electronic data in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China; the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Legal Issues Applicable to the Trial of Labor Disputes Cases regarding the burden of proof for overtime work; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

There are three key points regarding attendance proof: original data is the most important, screenshots come second, and handwritten summaries are the least reliable. If the company fails to provide attendance records, the company will bear the consequences. Exporting the data before leaving the company is a golden move for claiming overtime pay. For issues related to overtime pay and attendance proof, you can contact us for assistance.Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensationFor a comprehensive solution to the service, involving evidence preservation and notarization, you can refer to the following resources for more information.Specialised legal servicesFor plates involving the recovery of wage differences, you can refer to the following for referenceCreditor's rights and debts, and enforcement casesFor issues involving the intersection of work-related injuries and working hours, you can combine the relevant content into a single section.Personal injury and medical disputesPlate consultation.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Can screenshots of mobile phone attendance check be used as evidence?

Yes. A real-time screenshot with a time interface is qualified evidence. It is more convincing when combined with the original exported files and system records.

Q2: What should I do if the company doesn't provide attendance records?

After submitting preliminary evidence to prove that the company has access to attendance records, if the company refuses to submit the evidence, it shall bear the adverse consequences, and it can be presumed that the claim for overtime is valid.

Q3: Do attendance records need to be signed to be valid?

The original system data does not require a signature; only the summary table prepared unilaterally by the company and not signed by the recipient requires a signature confirmation. The evidentiary value of the two documents is completely different.

Q4: How to prevent the company from deleting or altering attendance records?

Export and notarize or record the data before leaving the company. During the arbitration stage, apply for an order to submit the original data, and the responsibility for any inconsistencies will lie with the company.

Q5: How can I prove overtime work without an attendance record?

The proof is composed of messages in the work group, overtime approval records, access control records, witness testimonies, and traces of overtime pay listed in the pay slips.

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 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 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.