TC IS HIGH
General Assembly of Law
Originally: 2006/9-479
The Verdict: 2006/484
Decision Date: 28.06.2006
SUMMARY: As the plaintiff and defendant reported, since the survey fee from professional organizations, other private tutoring institutions, professional organizations, wage survey unions was objected to, it was decided that the plaintiff’s stated fee should be determined in terms of employee rights and receivables, taking into account all the evidence collected by the said Department, it was determined that it was contrary to the previous decision procedures and principles.
(4857 PK m. 32)
Case:
At the end of the trial Decried due to the case between the parties; Ankara 13. on 22.09.2005 and with the decision of the Labor Court numbered 2005/750-945 on the partial acceptance of the case at the request of the attorneys of the parties for review, the Court of Cassation 9. According to the decision of the Legal Department dated 31.01.2006 and numbered 2005/34921, 2006/1842,
(… At the point of determining the monthly salary of the plaintiff employee, it was stated in the violation decision previously issued by our department that a wage survey should be conducted from the relevant professional organization, and the violation decision referred to by the court was followed. The item related to the plaintiff’s monthly salary was requested from a statement created by the private tutoring school employees and concluded according to the letter received. Although the wage survey has not been conducted from the relevant professional organization, the content of the cancellation decision has not been fulfilled.
The issue should be asked from the relevant professional organization that the case is a case of the Association of Private Tutoring Institutions (Ozdebir) and that all the evidence in the file should be evaluated and decided together, …),
at the end of the retrial, the previous decision was violated and resisted by the court on grounds and the file was returned to its place.
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the review by the General Assembly of Civil Law, and after reading the document in the file, the following issue was discussed:
Pay Decrees Between the blackouts, there is a dispute about the wages paid to the plaintiff employee.
In case of disputes that may arise between the parties to the employment contract regarding the amount of wages, it is possible to prove the actual wage Decently with any kind of evidence. It can be proved by evidence such as money receipts, bank records, commercial book records, witness statements showing the monthly wage, that the wages written in the payroll or service contract related to the employee’s signature are not real. In some cases, the fee may also be determined by specifying the work done by the plaintiff, the duration of service and other identifying characteristics, and asking the relevant professional organizations in cases where it is impossible to determine without leaving any room for doubt with the available evidence.
However, the fee amounts reported by professional organizations are not binding on the parties and the court, and should also be supported by other information and documents.
For the specified reasons, the plaintiff conducted a wage survey due to the defendant’s objection to the fee due to other professional courses during the examination conducted by professional organizations, a wage survey was conducted from the private organizations union, and taking into account all the evidence collected by the above-mentioned Department, it was determined that the plaintiff’s stated fee was contrary to the previous decision procedures and principles in terms of employee rights and receivables, and it was decided that the decision should be made. The decision to resist made for the specified reasons must be overturned.
Conclusion:
The defendant’s attorney’s decision to resist with the acceptance of the appeal was made for the reasons shown above, and the special chamber’s 429. in accordance with the article, it was decided to cancel it by a majority of votes on 28.06.2006 and, if requested, to refund the fee in advance upon appeal.