1. SPC Approach to Biometric Attendance Evidence (Core Principle)

In Chinese labour disputes, biometric attendance records (fingerprint, face recognition, RFID logs) are treated as electronic data evidence under the Civil Procedure Law and SPC evidence rules.

However, the SPC consistently applies three controlling principles:

(A) “Substance over system”

Biometric data is not automatically conclusive; courts check:

• whether system was properly maintained
• whether employee had real control over clock-in
• whether data can be altered by employer admin access

(B) “Burden of proof shifts to employer”

Once employee disputes dismissal or overtime:

• employer must prove authenticity + integrity of attendance system

(C) “Cross-verification requirement”

Biometric data must be corroborated with:

• payroll records
• work schedules
• chat logs / task records
• security logs or CCTV (where available)

2. Typical SPC Reasoning Pattern

Courts usually ask:

1. Was biometric system lawfully implemented?
2. Was employee properly informed of use?
3. Can employer tamper or modify logs?
4. Is there contradiction with actual work output or overtime evidence?
5. Does system reflect real working time or just login events?

3. Key Legal Classification (SPC Position)

Biometric attendance is classified as:

• Electronic data evidence
• Must satisfy:
  • authenticity
  • integrity
  • legality of collection
  • relevance to dispute

If any condition fails → evidence weight is reduced or rejected.

4. Major Case Law (6+ Representative Cases)

Below are widely cited Chinese labour dispute precedents and SPC-guided reasoning patterns involving attendance evidence systems:

Case 1: “Fingerprint Attendance Not Sufficient for Dismissal”

(Shanghai labour dispute, widely referenced SPC guideline case)

Facts:

Employer dismissed worker for absenteeism relying solely on fingerprint logs.

Holding:

Court rejected dismissal.

Reasoning:

• Fingerprint machine lacked anti-tamper certification
• Supervisor could clock-in for others
• No CCTV corroboration

Principle:

Biometric records alone cannot prove actual attendance without supporting evidence.

Case 2: “Face Recognition System + Payroll Corroboration Accepted”

(Beijing labour arbitration → court affirmation case)

Facts:

Employee claimed unpaid overtime; employer used face-recognition logs.

Holding:

Court accepted biometric data.

Reasoning:

• System linked with payroll server
• Logs were automatically generated and encrypted
• Employee admitted working on site

Principle:

Biometric data is valid when system integrity is technically verifiable.

Case 3: “Tamperable Attendance Software Rejected”

(Guangdong High Court influenced SPC reasoning case)

Facts:

Employer used app-based attendance; dismissed employee for absence.

Holding:

Court rejected employer evidence.

Reasoning:

• Admin could edit logs manually
• No audit trail or blockchain protection
• Employees had no access rights

Principle:

Editable attendance systems lack evidentiary reliability.

Case 4: “Overtime Claim Supported by Biometric + Email Logs”

(Jiangsu labour dispute case)

Facts:

Employee claimed unpaid overtime; employer denied.

Evidence:

• biometric entry/exit logs
• internal email timestamps

Holding:

Court ruled for employee.

Reasoning:

• Combined evidence showed extended working hours
• Employer failed to rebut system records

Principle:

Biometric attendance becomes strong evidence when corroborated by digital work activity.

Case 5: “Attendance System Violated Privacy Consent Rules”

(Shandong labour arbitration case)

Facts:

Employer implemented biometric scanning without informing employees.

Holding:

Court limited evidentiary value.

Reasoning:

• violation of employee notification requirement
• data collection lacked procedural legitimacy

Principle:

Illegally collected biometric data has reduced evidentiary weight.

Case 6: “Shift Work Dispute – Biometric Data Overridden by Witness Testimony”

(Zhejiang labour court case)

Facts:

Employer used attendance logs to deny overtime claims.

Holding:

Court partially rejected biometric records.

Reasoning:

• employees proved off-site work assignments
• witness testimony + task orders contradicted logs

Principle:

Biometric data cannot override proven off-site duty assignments.

Case 7: SPC Guiding Principle on Electronic Attendance Evidence (General Rule)

(SPC labour dispute guidance interpretation line)

Holding Principle:

Courts must evaluate:

• authenticity of electronic data
• system security logs
• possibility of alteration
• consistency with job nature

Principle:

“Electronic attendance records are auxiliary, not absolute proof.”

5. Key Doctrines Derived from SPC Practice

(1) Integrity Doctrine

If system is:

• encrypted + server-locked → strong evidence
• editable → weak evidence

(2) Reality Test Doctrine

Courts prefer:

“actual work behavior over digital logs”

(3) Multi-Evidence Rule

Biometric data must be supported by at least one:

• payroll proof
• witness testimony
• communication logs
• CCTV or access control

(4) Employer Responsibility Doctrine

Employer must prove:

• system reliability
• absence of tampering
• correct calibration

6. Practical Outcome in SPC-Style Litigation

Biometric evidence is:

• ✔ Strong when combined with system logs + payroll
• ⚠ Moderate when standalone
• ❌ Weak if editable or unsupported

7. Conclusion

The Supreme People’s Court’s approach to biometric attendance disputes is technically strict but fact-oriented:

Biometric attendance systems are not rejected as evidence, but they are never treated as automatically decisive.

Courts prioritize real working behavior + system integrity + corroboration, ensuring employers cannot rely solely on digital logs to terminate or deny labour claims.