9. Legal Department
Base Number: 2016/26856
Decision Number: 2019/22796
“Case Law Text”
COURT :COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE(BUSINESS)
As a result of the case between the parties, the decision was requested by the defendant-the attorney of the combined file plaintiff, who examined the appeal, and it became clear that the appeal requests were decidedly pending. After hearing the report issued by the examination Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Plaintiff – Summary Of The Request Of The Defendant In The Merged File:
Plaintiff-merged dossier defendants; next to your client, the defendant began in 1997 on the date of seniority rights and the poet 31/12/2004 by logging in to the company that is given to him, then again in 2013, that was the entrance to the defendant company, the insurance made in the beginning of 2005, the latest monthly net wage 2.826,00 TL, and a guy working as maintenance, technical support, after-sales service, elevator maintenance and repair work, 19/02/2014 on the company owner and general manager … they were told that no payment would be made to them and they were taken out of the factory under security supervision, on 24/02/2014…. Notary public Journal No. 4863 copied with copying prohibited by the plaintiff’s cease and desist controlled documents, where the document is located in the closet on 20/02/2014 43, therefore, Article 25 of the law of Employment Business/II-e was dissolved in accordance with the warning that had been the defendant to set up a company as claimed 1.000,000 TL capital need, salary, barely getting by, and a dime the accumulation of non-intention to set up a company and his client never complete lack of preparation is a figment of the defendant’s claim, he claimed that the company documents that the defendant claimed were controlled were documents circulating in the market and found in many people, that his client would not keep these documents in his closet if he intended to steal them, that his client would not be paid labor receivables despite the unfair termination of the employment contract, and that he would receive severance pay, notice compensation, bad faith compensation and annual leave fees from the defendant.
B) Defendant-Summary Of The Respondent’s Response To The Merged File:
Defendant-attorney of the merged filing plaintiff employer; the elevator company is a reputable company that has a name in the client since 1985, and technically very first manufactured almost all of the employees in the company working on the market that offers so many years, even they have continued to work after retirement, the owner of the company is at the beginning of the production technical personally, he used to work to be considered a trade secret of the products that are currently running and have worked for many years alongside the information that was copied by the plaintiff, and into a new structure with this document, the plaintiff received an official report and find hidden documents, the company EN ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management is a company that is operated to standards, technical information of “controlled document” as it is called, control of documents procedure for the preparation of controlled documents in a document titled, approval, release, distribution, revision, cancellation and storage of documents that are kept under strict control that has been described as the controlled copies should be distributed to whom is the general manager of the authority, the decision about how, over-controlled copy of the relevant section of the document to the parties for signature in the bowl and has been delivered, in the combined File No. 2014/97, the defendant requested the collection of TL 5,000,00 compensation from the defendant due to his conduct contrary to the loyalty debt that does not comply with the truth and loyalty rule.
C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:
The court ruled that with the partial acceptance of the original case, the collection of severance pay, notice compensation and annual leave fee receivables from the defendant’s employer, and the rejection of the combined case.
D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the defendant-the attorney of the plaintiff’s employer to file the merger.
E) Justification:
1 – according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based with the evidence collected in the articles in the file, the defendant-the combined file plaintiff’s Appeals, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are not in place.
2-there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract has been decommissioned by the defendant employer for the right reason.
The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated unfairly, and the defendant’s employer argued for justified termination based on the reason that the plaintiff had made a photocopy of some of the documents belonging to the workplace without permission, even though he did not have the authority.
By the court, “ the determination of whether a violation occurred to the obligations of loyalty in terms of the tripartite committee received the report from the expert, according to the report received, the plaintiff claims is retaining as…” to severance pay on the grounds that plaintiff’s demands were accepted if the file does not fit into the scope of the conclusion drawn.
Article 25 (II) of the Labor Law No. 4857 lists cases that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill, and in the presence of specified situations and similar ones, it is explained that the employer has the opportunity to justify termination of the labor contract. Again, in the lower bend of the mentioned bend (e), it was stated that employee behavior that does not comply with accuracy and commitment, such as abusing the trust of the employer, stealing, revealing the professional secrets of the employer, also gives the employer the opportunity to justify termination. As can be seen, the cases in the law are not a limited number, but in general, the words and behaviors that contradict the employee’s loyalty debt allow the employer to terminate.
In a concrete dispute, the plaintiff claims in his petition that he has withdrawn photocopies of the documents that are based on termination in order to update the documents that already exist in him. … in his statement received as a plaintiff’s witness,”.. These controlled documents are provided by the employer only to the responsible persons. I also had these documents because I was one of those responsible people. I kept these documents in my room. The claim that I and the plaintiff were taken out of these documents without permission is not true. It is true that these documents were copied by the plaintiff in the presence of everyone at the defendant’s work. The plaintiff should not have copied these documents without my permission. When I asked him, he said he copied the documents to update them. As I said, these documents were in my room. But because the plaintiff worked for me, he could easily enter the room and access these documents. In addition, all employees were verbally warned that these documents should not be copied…., ” he said.
From the information and documents in the file, the plaintiff copied documents belonging to the employer while working in the workplace, and did not have the authority and permission to make photocopies of these documents. since it is understood that this action of the plaintiff is contrary to accuracy and commitment, the court should decide to reject the plaintiff’s claims for severance and notice compensation, while the decision to accept it with contrary considerations required a violation.
F) Result:
It was decided unanimously on 19/12/2019 day to overturn the appeal decision due to the above written reason, to return the appeal fee received in advance to the relevant person on request.
