If the apparent authenticity of electronic attendance records is examined and it is found that there are obvious fraudulent behaviors (for example, the attendance records for several consecutive days are completely consistent, and the meeting records are completely consistent), which is not in line with common sense, then the electronic attendance records that have not been signed and approved by the employees themselves will not be accepted. If electronic attendance is reasonable on the surface, it should be considered together with other evidence and judged by comparison. After examination, if the electronic attendance record and other evidence can mutually confirm, it shall be accepted. At this time, even if the employee denies the authenticity of the electronic attendance record on the grounds that it has not been confirmed by his signature, it will not be accepted.
There are only electronic attendance records that employees have not signed, and there is no other corresponding evidence to support them. If the electronic attendance record has no traces of fraud or suspicion, and there is no conflict with other evidence, the validity of the evidence should not be easily denied, but the enterprise should be regarded as having completed the preliminary burden of proof for employee attendance. If an employee denies the electronic attendance record, the employee shall bear the opposite burden of proof and refute the authenticity of the evidence.
If an employee denies the authenticity of the electronic attendance record submitted by the enterprise, but it is difficult to prove the contrary, he can apply for the authentication of the original data of the electronic attendance record, and confirm whether the electronic attendance record submitted by the enterprise has been tampered with through judicial authentication. If it is found that the original data of electronic attendance has indeed been tampered with after appraisal, it shall be deemed that the enterprise forged evidence, and bear the consequences of losing the case, and that it shall compensate for the illegal termination of the labor contract, and bear the corresponding judicial appraisal fees as a sign of punishment. If it is found that the original data of electronic attendance has not been tampered with, it is deemed that the enterprise has completed the burden of proof for the employee's attendance violation, and the dissolution of the labor contract is in line with the law, and the employee bears the corresponding judicial appraisal fee as a sign of punishment.
I hope the above answers can help you!