Supreme Court 9. Law Department decision, Base 2015/711b 2016/9142 Desicion 12.04.2016;
Case: plaintiff vs. defendant, wage, overtime pay, public holiday, weekend pay, annual leave
the defendant-against-the-claimant requested that the payment of the notice compensation be decided.
The Local Court decided to partially accept the original case and to accept the opposite case.
During the sentence, the plaintiff-the opposing defendant’s lawyer appealed, for the case file
After hearing the report issued by the examination judge, the file was examined, and the need was discussed.
A) Plaintiff-Defendant Summary Of The Request:
Plaintiff-defendant to work as Mixer operator and shipping officer on 10/04/2011
started, worked until 10/04/2013, last net wage is 2,300. 00 TL,plaintiff
he works 45 hours a week, but overtime wages are not paid, on public holidays
claim that his work has not been paid, that his annual leave has not been used, that his salary has not been paid
by driving, you will receive overtime pay, Week holiday fee, annual leave fee and public holiday fee
B) Summary Of The Respondent-Versus-Plaintiff Response:
Defendant-counter plaintiff, the plaintiff worked between 10/04/2011-27/03/2013, decommissioned
he worked as a concrete plant shipment manager until the date of his departure, the plaintiff was paid a minimum wage
work, all plaintiff’s wages are paid, when the defendant is forced to work overtime in rebellion
that it was made and paid for, that the plaintiff used his annual leave during the working period,
6 days a week in the defendant’s rebellion, the plaintiff did not have a week’s holiday fee, national holiday
that their claims about their work have no basis, that they have been bartered offsetting,
payment of notice compensation to the plaintiff since the plaintiff has terminated the employment contract without complying with the notice guidelines
he argued that the case should be dismissed and that the notice compensation should be accepted.
C) summary of Local Court decision and judicial process:based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, in terms of the actual case: overtime and weekend work performed on the burden of proof that the plaintiff does not fulfill this obligation
finding cases against the defendant of the plaintiff witnesses that he could not bring, which he could not bring, the witness from this point of view
it was not possible to be respected for his statements, the phenomenon of overwork and weekend work
it is understood that the plaintiff party that will be able to prove cannot present evidence in Basque, the requests for this item will be received
the denial is that the plaintiff works on public holidays, as is understood by the defendant’s witness statements,
public holiday fee since it cannot be proven that the fee against his work was paid by the defendant’s employer
it has been decided that he will receive.
From the point of view of the case: the plaintiff claimed that the contract of work was terminated by the defendant
however, the plaintiff’s handwritten resignation statement indicates otherwise that no evidence has been submitted to the file and
17 of the plaintiff’s law 4857, which did not show any reason in the declaration of resignation.
in accordance with the article, the defendant must notify the employer in advance of the termination, the defendant must notify the employer
it has been decided that he will receive notice compensation on the grounds that he has the right to claim compensation.
D) appeal:the decision has been appealed by the plaintiff-the defendant’s attorney.
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff
the appeals of the defendant’s attorney, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are not in place.
2-non-payment of employee’s wages or … based on their premiums over the actual wage
Article 24/II-E of law 4857 gives the employee the right to justified termination. Another
although the reason for termination is in accordance with Article 435/2 of the Tbk, which is in force on the date of termination from the party
service in accordance with the rules of honesty from the party that terminates the contract, if it must be notified by the party
if it is not expected to maintain its relationship, all conditions will be considered justifiable reasons, so the employee
failure to clearly state the reason for termination does not affect the result. Plaintiff’s general holiday fees were not paid
and … it is fixed that their premiums are not reported on the actual fee, and essentially this Court is also
is the adoption. It is constant that the business relationship is therefore unbearable, and the plaintiff soon after termination
he’s suing. In this case, the defendant-against due to the termination of the plaintiff’s business contract for the right reason
the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation is erroneous when it is required to be rejected.
3-reputation for the statements of the plaintiff witnesses in the court on the grounds that they have filed a lawsuit against the employer
the plaintiff could not prove the overtime fee.
his refusal has been decided. But if there is evidence other than witness statements, and in the case filed by these witnesses
if it is accepted that overtime was done in the riot, this evidence must be evaluated together. In
according to the file, some payrolls have overtime payments, as well as shift work
the defendant’s witness statements are contradictory, and the defendant’s recognition also states that the plaintiff worked outside of shift
has been. On the other hand, the plaintiff was working 18 hours of overtime a week in the …’S riot, which was heard as a recognition
Istanbul Anadolu 9.is court date 17/07/2014 and E.2013/443, K.By resolution 2014/375
it has been accepted and this decision has been approved and finalized. If this decision is final, the defendant’s witness statements the plaintiff
when the witness accounts are evaluated together with; it is constant that overtime was done in the riot. Court
it should be decided that the expert will receive overtime by evaluating this report. Written
the decision to reject the request for overtime pay on the grounds was wrong and required to overturn it.
The appeal of the appeal was overturned due to the reasons written above,
on request, the return of the fee to the interested party was decided unanimously on 12/04/2016.