The first situation is when the Tribunal, after examining all the evidence in the case, determines that one of the parties - whether it is the employee or the employer - has succeeded in persuading the existence of additional work of a certain scope. In such a case, the overtime pay will be awarded on the basis of the scope proven.
The second situation is when it can be positively determined that the employee worked overtime, and therefore the condition for presumption is met, but it is not possible to prove the scope of his work in them due to the employer's lack of proper registration. In this case, the permanent presumption will apply and the result will be the employer's liability "for a number of overtime hours not exceeding fifteen weekly overtime hours or not exceeding sixty monthly overtime.
The third situation is when the scales at the end of the judicial proceeding remain hostile to the question of the fulfillment of the condition, i.e., overtime work. This means that the probability that the employee worked overtime is equivalent to the probability that he did not work them. In these conditions of uncertainty, the question of the employer's liability and the employee's entitlement will be decided based on the division of the burden of persuasion. This means that the classification of presumption as transferring the burden of persuasion, and not only the burden of proof, will lead to the application of its results, i.e., the employer will be charged "for a number of overtime hours not exceeding fifteen hours per week or not exceeding sixty monthly overtime.
The fourth situation, when the court makes a finding regarding the lack of overtime work. In such a case, the presumption did not apply, since its foundations - which are derived from the classification of overtime pay as a conditional supplement - were not proven, and the scales did not even remain hostile to them. Without pretending to exhaust, we note that within the framework of the fourth situation, there can be cases in which the balance of probabilities is tilted to the employer's version, whether because of the evidence he assumed or because the employee's version regarding overtime work was found to be unreliable, so that the court does not rely on it. It should be emphasized that this conclusion does not erode the majority opinion in the Buskila case, since there too it was stated that "in order for the claim under Amendment 24 to be rejected for overtime work, it is required that the employer convince the court that the claim should be dismissed. When and how the matter will be called, formulas should not be determined, and each case will be decided factually according to the wisdom of the court sitting in the case."