A logistics activity officer whose contract ended in 2019 through a mutual agreement requested payment for overtime hours, providing a table with start and end times for each half-day, including travel times. The Court of Appeal in Caen initially rejected the claim, arguing that the travel times were not sufficiently distinguished. However, the Court of Cassation overturned this decision, stating that the table allowed the employer to respond and that the Court of Appeal had improperly placed the burden of proof solely on the employee. The decision clarified that the employee should present what they know about their hours, while the employer should provide their own elements, and the judge would then separate work from travel time. This approach aligns with Article L3171-4 of the Labor Code, which requires the employee to present "sufficiently precise elements" on the hours they claim to have worked, allowing the employer to respond with their own elements. The ruling also addressed the issue of travel time, noting that the Court of Cassation changed its position in 2022, stating that the trip of an itinerant employee constitutes actual work when during that time, the employee is available to the employer, complies with instructions, and cannot engage in personal activities. The employer must produce documents such as the list and address of the sites, schedules, distances, or vehicle records to argue that the trip is not actual work. The ruling also touched on the issue of overtime rates, which are set by collective agreements and cannot be less than 10%. If no agreement exists, the rate is 25% for the first eight hours and 50% beyond. The Labor Code provides for an annual quota of 220 hours, with mandatory rest counterparts if exceeded. The employer is responsible for informing the employee of the rest hours credited and must indicate this on a document attached to the payslip. The ruling also addressed the issue of hidden work, where the Labor Code targets the act of mentioning a number of hours lower than the actual ones on the payslip. The employee must prove the employer's intention to hide the work, which is a separate issue from the back pay request. The ruling in the case of September 2, 2026, highlights the ongoing debates around the qualification of trips and the burden of proof, with the Court of Appeal in Rouen needing to determine the number of overtime hours and whether the quota has been exceeded. The employer must ensure the monitoring of the workload provided for by the agreement, as failure to do so can lead to the invalidity of the daily allowance and potential overpayment claims. The ruling also clarified that the statute of limitations for overtime back pay requests is three years, starting from the usual payment date of each salary. However, an amendment allows the employee whose contract is terminated to claim the salaries of the three years preceding the termination, if they act within the three years following it.