The Court of Cassation’s Approach to Proving Overtime Claims Through Witness Testimony

Türeli & Ceylan Attorney-at-Law

In labor law, one of the most common disputes involves claims for unpaid overtime wages. In practice, proving overtime work can be difficult for employees—especially in the absence of written evidence. In such cases, witness testimonybecomes a primary means of proof. However, the Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) applies specific criteria in evaluating the reliability and sufficiency of witness statements, emphasizing that not every testimony can serve as conclusive evidence.

1. How Can an Employee Prove Overtime Work?

Under Turkish labor law, the burden of proof lies with the employee claiming unpaid overtime. The following means of evidence may be submitted:

• Company records (e.g., attendance logs)
• Time cards or access control system data
• Payroll slips and wage statements
• Internal company correspondence (e.g., shift assignments)
• Employment contracts
• Bank transaction records
• Witness statements

However, since such documents are often either not maintained or not accessible to the employee, witness testimonybecomes the principal method for substantiating overtime claims.

2. The Court of Cassation’s Criteria for Witness Credibility

In its case law, the Court of Cassation insists that a witness’s statement must be firsthand, objective, and free from bias or shared interest.

In its decision dated 09.05.2023 (9th Civil Chamber, Case No: 2023/2223, Decision No: 2023/6798), the Court held:

“Testimony from witnesses who are unfamiliar with the working conditions of the workplace or who could not have had knowledge of the work schedule shall not be deemed reliable.”

Accordingly, the credibility of a witness is strengthened if they:

• Worked in the same department as the claimant,
• Were present during the alleged overtime hours,
• Had direct observation of the work being done.

3. Conflict of Interest and Reciprocal Witnessing

The Court of Cassation also warns against reciprocal or biased witness testimony. If a witness is also involved in a legal dispute against the same employer or is testifying in exchange for reciprocal support in their own case, their impartiality is questionable.

In a decision dated 24.05.2016 (7th Civil Chamber, E. 2015/20952, K. 2016/11178), the Court stated:

“It has been established that the plaintiff’s witnesses had filed similar lawsuits against the employer and had testified for each other in their respective cases. Therefore, reliance on such testimony was erroneous.”

Moreover, if a witness fails to disclose that the plaintiff had also testified in their own case, this may render their statement completely unreliable.

4. Is Witness Testimony Alone Sufficient Without Written Evidence?

In its 15.05.2023 decision (9th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/4113, K. 2023/7144), the Court ruled that witness testimony alone is not sufficient when:

• The witness only observed part of the employee’s work period,
• There is no supporting documentary evidence,
• There is a clear shared interest between the witness and the plaintiff.

These rulings demonstrate that testimony must be corroborated by additional written evidence to be legally persuasive.

5. Practical Guidance from Türeli & Ceylan

At Türeli & Ceylan Attorney-at-Law, we advise clients in employment disputes to:

• Select witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of work hours and practices,
• Ensure any conflict of interest or reciprocal arrangements are disclosed upfront,
• Supplement testimony with documentary evidence (e.g., shift schedules, email traffic, swipe card data),
• Be transparent about any cross-witnessing practices to maintain credibility.

Claims for unpaid overtime wages must be substantiated with a solid chain of evidence to succeed before the courts. While witness statements alone may not suffice, when provided by credible individuals and reinforced with documentary evidence, they can play a key role in proving the claim. According to the Court of Cassation’s jurisprudence, consistent, impartial, and directly observed testimony carries significant evidentiary weight.