9. Civil Department 2019/94 B. , 2019/10769 D.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT: ISTANBUL DISTRICT COURT 30. LAW OFFICE
Case: the plaintiff requested that the decision be made on the invalidity of the termination, its return to work and its legal consequences.
The Local Court has decided to accept the case.
Against the decision of the court of First Instance, the defendant’s lawyer applied for an appeal.
Istanbul District Court 30. The legal department has essentially rejected the defendant’s attorney’s application for appeal.
Istanbul District Court 30. Although the decision of the legal department was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the period, the file was examined after the report issued by the examination Judge for the case file was heard, the need was spoken and considered:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary Of The Plaintiff’s Request:
Attorney of the plaintiff, defendant company … in the workplace from 13.05.2013 until 22.07.2016, when the employment contract was terminated without a valid reason, claims that his client’s employment contract was terminated without a valid reason with the termination notice dated 22.07.2016, claiming that the invalidity of the termination and the return of the plaintiff to work
B) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:
Counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff’s employment as a result of maintenance of behaviors that affect the workflow in terms of becoming the employer of the employment contract is not expected as a result of dissolved valid reason for the plaintiff’s irresponsible behavior that affect the way the business organization unexcused work overtime to disagree with the fact that the plaintiff in the amount of intense writ of wage garnishment is a possibility, if the workload increases the necessity of tracking and business planning certificate created in the negative, arguing that a dismissal has asked for.
C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:
The court held that the plaintiff was not present when any record of days late, which is, again, was often claimed to allow the plaintiff, but the plaintiff also shows the permissions that permit he received the plaintiff’s consent not to be submitted in the workplace that cause to slow down or stop production in what way, no concrete evidence has not been presented, still justify the termination of the plaintiff’s salary due to foreclosures in workload sticker made, however, despite his statements of this witness is the defendant in the workplace staff who work wage levy, also justify the termination of a severe sanction of foreclosures in the salaries of workers is the absence of a warning in this regard was made to the plaintiff by the defendant is also reported to SSI exit code ” 4 – an indefinite term employment contract, the employer is justified by reason of the termination without notice” as reported by the defendant upon the plaintiff’s wrongful termination of employment is clearly the SSI is reported that on the grounds that it was decided to acceptance of the case.
D) application for retention :
Against the decision of the court of first instance, the defendant’s attorney applied for an appeal.
E) Summary Of The District Court Decision:
Regional Justice Court, the defendant offered an example of the workplace by the employer to file, according to the plaintiff, where the absence of a warning on the report dated 21.01.2014 has been punished with a penalty, then made to justify termination, the plaintiff in the absence of come late to work and leaving early with records such as records regarding the absence of it could not be proven, subject to a report dated 08.07.2016 holiday to come to work still not justify the termination of the action the defendant tapped the witnesses they continue to work in the workplace, and therefore the statement alone is not enough, the defendant used the plaintiff the authority with the approval of the permissions company, foreclosures were not given any warning before the termination of the plaintiff’s salary as 10 due to the plaintiff of the behavior of concrete in a manner that has led to negativity in the workplace on the grounds that it could not be proven, the defendant’s attorney about the merits of the appeal the appeal is dismissed.
F) appeal :
The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision within the legal period.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract has been rightly terminated by the employer due to the employee’s conduct contrary to decency and commitment.
18 of the Labor Code No. 4857. the article gave the employer the authority to terminate the employment contract for reasons arising from the conduct and competence of the employee. The purpose of termination caused by the employee’s behavior is not to punish or sanction behavior contrary to the labor contract that the employee previously committed; it is to avoid the risk of continuing to violate contractual obligations, repeating them. In order for the employment contract to be terminated due to the employee’s behavior, the employee must have a behavior that is contrary to the employment contract and violates the contract. A valid termination arising from the employee’s behavior occurs if he has violated the contract with the employee’s defective behavior and as a result the business relationship has been negatively affected. In contrast, the valid reason for termination caused by the employee’s behavior cannot be mentioned, since the employee cannot be held responsible for his contractual behavior that is not based on defects and negligence.
Reasons arising from the conduct and competence of the worker, 25 of the same law. in addition to the reasons mentioned in the article, although not of this nature, these are the reasons that significantly negatively affect the appearance of work in the workplace. For reasons caused by the employee’s behavior or incompetence, it is necessary to recognize that the termination is based on valid reasons, where the maintenance of the employment relationship cannot be expected to be significant and reasonable from the employer’s point of view.
A concrete dispute, the plaintiff’s employment contract with the letter of termination dated 22.7.2016 “the continuation of your work during office hours, citing family issues often come late to work and to allow you to quit before you wish to make, however, and this is often adversely affected the flow of business to be absent because you are also working in the workplace, giving rise to a need for more of your colleagues impairs the welfare of the workforce, again, it has been found that a large number of executive follow-ups have been made about you by different creditors and foreclosures have been placed on your salary, which also negatively affects the work process and workplace organization, which will lead to significant loss of time in the human resources, law and accounting departments. Because of your conduct of this nature, your defense has been requested in writing, and you have not submitted any written defense…. 17 of the Labor Code No. 4857. and 18. it was terminated on 22.07.2016 according to the articles”.
Although the claims that the plaintiff often came to work late and wanted to leave early working hours cannot be proven by the evidence and witness statements submitted to the file by the defendant, there are 12 salary foreclosure documents written to the defendant’s employer by the enforcement agencies on various dates submitted to the file, causing the employer to address continuous execution follow-up articles, causing the plaintiff to cause negativity in the workplace, it is understood from the information and documents in the file that the termination of the defendant employer based on the reasons described is not justified, but is based on a valid reason.
For the reason described, acceptance of the case on Written grounds rather than rejection is not appropriate.
In accordance with Article 20/3 of the Labor Law No. 4857, our department has decided as follows.
Provision: with the justification described above;
1.Istanbul District Court 28. To overturn and eliminate the decisions of the legal department and the Court of First Instance,
3.44.40 TL decision-ilam expenses to be taken, 29.20 TL advance expenses deposited by the plaintiff with the deduction of the balance 15,20 TL decision-ilam expenses collected from the plaintiff and irat registration to the Treasury,
4.The cost of the trial made by the plaintiff to be left above, the defendant made 300.00 TL. payment of trial costs to the defendant with collection from the plaintiff,
5.2,275. 00 TL fee determined according to the tariff in force on the date of the decision to take the power of attorney from the plaintiff and give it to the defendant,
6.At the request of the appeal fee received in advance, the return of the defendant, the file to the Court of First Instance, and the sending of a sample of the decision to the District Court,
It was decided by unanimous decision on 13.05.2019.