The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice determined, in a binding opinion, that when an employee who worked overtime in a continuous shift claims such payment, but fails to precisely detail the time scheduled for rest and meals, this does not necessarily make his claim improbable. The court reasoned that all aspects involved in the performance of the job during the shift must be considered, such as number of hours, nature of the activity, personal conditions (i.e. age, gender, physical condition, disabilities, etc.) and whether the physiological needs of a human being – nourishment, rest – in relation to the continuous activities in which the employee was involved were indeed covered, taking into account if the work schedule established rest periods. Thus, it is lawful for the Labor Boards and the Courts of Appeal to study the objectivity of the employee’s arguments regarding the overtime s/he alleges to have worked.