Recently, a news article stating that "the evidence of overtime work has been approved by the leadership in the circle of friends" has gone viral and attracted widespread attention from society. According to a report by CCTV, an employee promoted the company's products on their day off and received a thumbs up from their leader after posting on their social media account. However, the employee was later fired by the company and claimed that the company should pay overtime pay, citing the leader's likes on their social media account. The case was supported by the court. Faced with fast-paced and high-intensity work, overtime seems to have become the norm for many people, and some overtime is quite hidden. For example, in recent years, the highly anticipated "online overtime" has blurred the boundaries between work and life. For example, "fragmented overtime" such as "meetings at the end of work and training on weekends" may not seem like long hours, but allowing employees to handle work affairs in a fragmented manner during their break time is actually a form of "invisible overtime". Worse still, some employers use various excuses to evade the payment of overtime pay, such as stipulating that "no approval can be considered overtime", while also "making obstacles" and creating barriers when employees submit application reports, resulting in the loss of their right to rest. In practice, "what situations are considered overtime", "how to determine overtime hours", and "how to calculate overtime pay" often become the focus of labor dispute cases. In addition, in the digital age, the protection of workers' rights and interests presents new characteristics, bringing new challenges to judicial trial work. Faced with these situations, the judicial authorities are also actively responding to the concerns of workers and unifying the rules of judgment. At the beginning of this year, the first case of "invisible overtime" issued by the Supreme People's Court clarified the criteria for identifying online "invisible overtime", breaking through traditional overtime identification factors and innovatively taking "substantial labor" and "obvious occupation of time" as key identification factors, conveying the judicial attitude of "making online work profitable and offline rest guaranteed". In the case of "Friend Circle Leader Thumbs Up Overtime", the employer proposed that employees should fill out the "Overtime Application Form" in advance and obtain approval from their superiors before working overtime. Otherwise, it will be considered as voluntary labor and will not be treated as overtime. The court did not adhere to the overtime pre-approval system advocated by the unit, but recognized the electronic evidence of overtime provided by employees. This is a beneficial measure taken by the judiciary to continuously adapt to the changes in labor forms and resolve disputes in the digital age, and also a useful inspiration and effective guidance for workers' rights protection. For a long time, it has not been easy for workers to prove that they have added classes and for how long. Especially when it comes to online work, its fragmented nature makes it difficult to quantify workers' work tasks, and some employers use their advantageous position to make it even more difficult for workers to collect evidence. However, with the significant changes in the tools and methods used by workers to provide labor, the relevant identification of evidence in judicial practice is also keeping pace with the times. WeChat chat records, Tencent meeting records, DingTalk communication records and other related data stored in electronic media have become important basis for courts to determine overtime in some cases. The employee in the "Friend Circle Leader Thumbs Up Overtime" case successfully recovered their overtime pay by submitting a screenshot of the "Leader Thumbs Up" to support their overtime schedule. It can be seen that in the information age of WeChat real name and diverse electronic evidence preservation methods, as long as the submitted electronic evidence can form a complete evidence chain with substantive content that mutually supports each other, it can be used at critical moments. Of course, workers also need to 'know how to use'. The trial of this case can serve as a good example for workers to protect their rights, reminding them to pay attention to collecting and preserving evidence in their work, and understanding how to make evidence speak in court. We are also pleased to see the judiciary play a greater leading, promoting, and safeguarding role in resolving labor disputes. Through more typical cases and individual judgments, we can curb illegal employment and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers. (New Society)