9. Civil Department 2020/1848 Base. , 2020/7866 Decision.
“text of jurisprudence”
Court :Employment Tribunal
CASE TYPE: ACTION OF DEBT
In the petition dated 03.06.2020 wire transfer issued by the attorney of the plaintiff, our department dated 13.02.2020, 2016/13686 B. and 2020/2140 D. it was claimed that the decision to break the number was made on the basis of material error, and it was requested that the decision be eliminated and the decision be upheld.
26 of the Labor Law No. 4857 of the termination authority of our department. it was decided that the decision to disrupt was based on financial error, ignoring the fact that it was decided without clarifying whether it had used the rights within the six working days stipulated in the article, and it was decided to eliminate the decision to disrupt our department.
After hearing the report issued by the review Judge for the case file, the file was reviewed, discussed and considered.
Summary Of Plaintiff Request:
The attorney of the plaintiff said that the plaintiff worked as a butcher in the defendant’s workplace between 27.03.2008 and 13.06.2014, with a net salary of TL 1,550.00 claiming that the employment contract was terminated for unfair reasons, he demanded the collection of severance and notice compensation and overtime receivables from the defendant.
Summary Of Respondent Response:
The defendant’s counsel, plaintiff’s negative behavior become continuous, the latest on 26.05.2014 Foreman and the supervisor section “asshole” and the chief walked over were affronted by saying, the plaintiff would accept this point of, up to and asked to dismiss the case by arguing that employment was revoked for good cause.
Summary Of Court Decision:
Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the plaintiff is in front of the defendant company 27/03/2008 -13/06/2014 he worked for 6 years 2 months 17 days, and his final gross salary was TL 2,438 as a result, the word said means “louse’s child” in the Turkish language, so there is no weight to require termination, since it is a matter to be resolved with a warning and warning, the termination is not appropriate to the weight of the word, and the termination is unfair and requires compensation on the grounds that the lawsuit is partially accepted.
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
1-according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based with the evidence collected in the articles in the file, the plaintiff’s Appeals, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are not in place.
2-the issue of whether the employment contract has been terminated within the period of deceleration is a matter of dispute between the parties.
In case of reasons for justified termination from the point of view of the employee or employer, the period of use of the authority of the other party to terminate the contract for a justified reason is not unlimited. In this regard, 4857 Labor Code 26. in the article, the date on which the employer learned and the date on which the event occurred are provided for two separate periods to be based on the start. Termination of an employee or employer who does not follow the path of termination within these periods does not result in the consequences of a justified termination. This period is determined in the law as six working days from the date of teaching the event that caused the termination by the other party and probably one year from the date of the occurrence of the act.
A similar arrangement was made under the Labour Act No. 18 of 1475. while it is included in the article, in the Labor Law No. 4857, it is stipulated that the period of 1 year will not be processed if the worker has provided material interest in the incident. In this case, if the employee had a material interest in the incident that caused the rightful termination, the employer has the opportunity to have a justified termination, provided that he / she has complied with six working days, no matter how long the incident has passed.
The six-day period of work begins to work from the day the employee or employer learns of the incident that caused the rightful termination. The day of learning about the event is not counted, and the following working days are counted and the right to justify termination ends at the end of the sixth day.
If the employer is a legal entity, the termination of the six-day period begins on the day the competent authority learns. An inspector’s investigation into this issue does not start the process of discussing the incident with the disciplinary committee. On the day the event is referred to the person or board authorized to terminate it, it constitutes the beginning of a six-day period of work.
In any case, the period of one year begins from the day of the event.
26 of the Labor Law No. 4857. six working days and one-year periods provided for in the article are separately qualified. In other words, the right of termination must be exercised within six working days from the date of learning and one year from the date of the event. Even if one of the periods has passed, it eliminates the possibility of justified termination.
Even if the parties do not put forward due to the nature of the rights reduction period, the judge must consider resen.
A party exercising its right to terminate without notice after the periods specified in this article have passed shall be liable for severance pay if notice compensation and conditions have been formed, as it will be deemed to have unfairly violated the contract.
In a concrete dispute, it is fixed that the plaintiff called Muharrem, the supervisor with whom the defendant worked in the company, a “liar” and “asshole”, and that the employment contract was terminated for this reason.
A termination of an employer’s employee is justified because of these words that are offensive to another employee. It is also clear that the definition of ”decency” is used for insulting purposes among the public.
In the context of this determination, the acceptance of severance and notice compensation claims on the grounds that the court’s definition of ”asshole” is not an insult based on the mere dictionary meaning is erroneous, but it is necessary to first clarify whether the defendant employer’s termination authority was used within the 6-day Rights reduction period provided for by Article 26 of law 4857.
From the contents of the file; basis of termination the event occurred on 26.05.2014, the plaintiff’s defense was taken on the same day and he accepted the actions subject to termination here, while the defendant employer’s termination notice was sent on 13.06.2014 and his exit from work was again shown in the records as the date 13.06.2014.
The purpose of the court in this case that need to be made by the competent authority and accordingly investigate the learning of the history of business, termination of the authority within the statutory period to determine whether it is using to be clarified, according to the results, if used within the period of severance pay in the acceptance or denial of a considerable number of power if not used within the period of salt to dissolve decided upon the adoption on the grounds that it consists of.
As a result, the conclusion of a misleading assessment based on incomplete research required distortion.
It was unanimously decided on 15.09.2020 to overturn the appeal decision for the reason written above and to return the advance appeal fee to the interested party upon request.