THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION ON WHO OWNS THE BURDEN OF PROOF

T.C SUPREME COURT 9.Legal Department, Base: 2015/34918 Decision: 2019/19490 Decision Date: 11.11.2019

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

TRIBUNAL :EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

As a result of the case between the parties, it became clear that the decisionthe review of the appeal was requested by the parties’ deputies and was within the period of the appeal requests. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:

The plaintiff, working until his client 18/04/2009 date date 31/01/2012 International Truck is a driver, a minimum fee plus the cost of the final prime time is in 2-3 months, doing time, time for European countries is 550 euros per UK for 650 euros stipend received, and wrongful termination of employment that had been £ 2000 as the interpreter is paid with the statement that notice, severance pay, overtime, weekends, public holidays, notice of permit fees, he demanded and sued that the 1300 TL, including the salary and expenses they would receive with the underpaid salary, be taken from the defendant and given to his client.

B) Summary of the Respondent’s Attorney’s Response:

The defendant has requested the dismissal of the case.

C) Summary of the Trial Process and the Decision of the Local Court:

By the court; the witness statements, evidence, expert reports, review the scope and been unjustly fired at the end of the file is made in accordance with the plaintiff, although he was also entitled to compensation for holidays worked and he was seen on the plaintiff’s annual general because it does not use the permissions are fixed, although the witness statements, in contrast, partially because it could not be proven by the defendant of the plaintiff’s case, it was decided to acceptance.

D) Appeal:

The decision was appealed by the party’s deputies during the decision period.

E) Justification:

1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the parties’ appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.

2-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff will be entitled to the decommissioning bonus.

Since 2009, the plaintiff workers climbed every time allowance of 100 € was paid allowances deducted from the premium paid by claiming that missing time missing due to the collection of the request, witnesses corroborated the plaintiff’s claim, defendant acknowledges this claim.

It is seen that this request was rejected by the court without any justification.

The provision on the basis of the examination of the expert’s report; and the burden of proof belongs to the respondent fee is paid, the fee for the payment of the receivables reports requested shipping cost, payment receipts, examined plaintiff’s petition to demand the advances to be deducted from the lack of time made a definitive determination that is paid Prime stated, it was understood that it was reported.

He has passed the appellate review by our department and the 9th Supreme Court. The Legal Department’s decision file No. 2015/35379 dated 14.12.2015 and based on 2015/21937 and other precedent files are also; Bakırköy 12 that it was decided to reject the claim that the deduction was applied since 2009 and that the plaintiff continues to work in this way, the application will receive a time bonus on the grounds that it has become a workplace requirement. It is understood that the Employment Tribunal issued Decision No. 2012/587 dated 12.11.2012 and based on 2011/356 and informed that no calculation will be made regarding the bet and claim as it is a precedent in this case file.

The aforementioned decision of the local court has passed the appellate review by our Department and has been submitted to the 9th Court of Cassation. In summary, with the addition of the Law Department’s Decision No. 2014/35874 dated 27.11.2014 and based on 2013/1940, “22 of every fundamental amendment made against a worker during the period of law No. 4857. 22 of the amendment made against the employee, which must be made in writing in accordance with the article and the written consent of the employee must be found. it is broken down on the grounds that it cannot be accepted that it has become a workplace requirement due to the fact that it is done outside the procedure in the article, so the information and documents in the file should be evaluated and the claimant’s request, if any, should be ruled on”.

In the face of these explanations, the plaintiff’s difference of expense claims should be ruled out taking into account the information, documents and statements in the file, while the written justification and rejection are erroneous.

3-When calculating the root and october reports of the accounts contained in the file, the stamp duty rate should be taken into account as 7.59%, while it is incorrect to take it into account as 0.66%.

F) The result:

It was decided unanimously on 11.11.2019 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED for the reasons written above, and the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the interested party upon request.