Summary:
The plaintiff’s complaint that he was subjected to mobbing by his employer falls within the scope of the constitutional right to complain. If the complaint is an exercise of a right, it cannot constitute a valid or legitimate reason for termination unless it constitutes slander or an attack on personal rights, and the court’s written dismissal of the case based on an erroneous assessment does not constitute grounds for violation.
TC
Supreme
Court of Appeals
Case No: 2014/1440
Decision No: 2014/13116
Date:
CASE: The plaintiff requested that the termination be deemed invalid and that a decision be made to reinstate him to his job.
The local court dismissed the case.
Although the plaintiff’s representative appealed the ruling, the case was reviewed, discussed, and deemed necessary upon hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge regarding the file:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff’s representative states that on January 5, 2011, your client, who was responsible for sales and marketing at the workplace, verbally informed the defendant, where he was employed on April 2, 2012, that mobbing was being practiced at the plaintiff’s workplace, and that the solution was to increase pressure to resign, which was communicated through a notary instead of directly to the notary. that the incidents were attempted to be resolved on 28.03.2012 with the pink slip sent on 23.02.2012, that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on 02.04.2012 pursuant to Article 4857/25-II -b of the Labor Law, and stated in the complaint that the plaintiff’s employment contract did not grant the right to terminate for just cause, requesting a ruling on the invalidity of the termination, the reinstatement of the plaintiff, and the payment of compensation.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s representative stated that 20 customer visits were made per week, that the plaintiff could only make 15 visits due to undergoing treatment, that he made 8 customer visits between December 6-14, 2012, that he sent a warning letter while on leave on February 23, 2012, that he worked late into the night, that he requested a harassment defense, that he was forced to resign, and that the plaintiff was warned in a letter dated December 17, 2011, to comply with the requirement to work overtime once.
In response to the defense dated February 14, 2012, a notarized reply dated March 1, 2012 was submitted. Following a reminder dated March 27, 2012, the defendant’s insistence was not clarified, and it was decided to terminate the case with a favorable ruling. The plaintiff, whose employment contract was terminated on 02.04.2012, was dismissed on the grounds that the allegations attributed to the employer’s representative in the additional termination notice were unfounded, in accordance with Article 25/II of Labor Law No. 4857.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Although the plaintiff’s claim was proven by the court, the plaintiff’s constitutional right to complain against other employees under human rights continues. Considering the complaints, the investigation phase, the warning letters issued by the defendant employer, and the defense letters, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s behavior caused negativity in the workplace and was of a nature that could be expected in terms of the continuation of the employment relationship, and that the employer terminated the employment contract based on valid reasons arising from the employees’ behavior.
D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
E) Reasoning:
In the specific case, the plaintiff’s employment contract; was terminated pursuant to Article 25/II of Law No. 4857, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet the weekly customer visit requirement of 20, that this number was reduced to 15% at the plaintiff’s suggestion due to illness, that the plaintiff fell short of the visit requirement, and that a false indictment was issued against the plaintiff due to the plaintiff’s criminal complaint against the general manager to the public prosecutor’s office.
According to the file contents, it is understood that the plaintiff was first requested to defend himself on February 14, 2012, on the grounds that he did not make the weekly client visits he was required to make, and that the termination took place on April 2, 2012. It is determined that the plaintiff did not make the weekly 20 client visits, which consist of objective, tangible, measurable data in the file served to him, that the plaintiff had to make 20 client visits per week, that the plaintiff had refrained from visiting due to illness, that the time available to objectively measure the plaintiff’s performance during the termination process was insufficient, and that a period of approximately two months could not be considered sufficient to measure the plaintiff’s performance. It was concluded that the reason stated in the termination notice was not valid.
has been understood that the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging that he was forced to resign from his workplace on March 28, 2012, due to mobbing, that he was pressured to increase the number of visits, that he was constantly monitored, and that he was insulted by the General Manager with remarks such as “you are unqualified, you don’t even have a desk.” It is understood that the plaintiff’s unfounded accusations in the termination notice were also cited as grounds for termination.
As a result of the investigation, it was stated that the allegations were unfounded, that the legal elements of the crime were not present, and that there were no grounds for prosecution, and that the plaintiff could file a lawsuit in the Labor Courts because the content of the tip fell within the scope of mobbing. The plaintiff’s complaint that he was subjected to mobbing by the employer falls within the scope of the constitutional right to complain. If the complaint is the exercise of a right, the court’s written decision to dismiss the case, which is based on an erroneous assessment rather than acceptance, constitutes a violation, and it is overlooked that it cannot be a valid or legitimate reason for termination unless it constitutes an insult or defamation of personal rights.
Pursuant to Article 20, Paragraph 3 of Labor Law No. 4857, it has been decided to overturn the ruling, and the decision is as follows.
RULING: For the reasons stated above;
1- The court’s decision to REVERSE AND CANCEL the ruling, dated and numbered as stated above,
2- The INVALIDITY of the TERMINATION by the employer and the REINSTATEMENT of the plaintiff,
3- The amount of compensation to be paid if the employer fails to reinstate the plaintiff within the legal timeframe, despite the plaintiff applying for reinstatement within that timeframe, shall be determined as four months’ salary, taking into account the reason for termination and seniority,
4- The plaintiff’s application to the employer for reinstatement within the period and the payment of up to four months’ salary and other rights to which he is entitled until the decision becomes final, and if the plaintiff starts work, any notice and seniority compensation will be deducted from this claim,
5- Since the salary was received in advance, there is no place for it to be received again,
6- Since the plaintiff is represented by an attorney, the attorney’s fee of 1,500 TL, which was in effect on the date of the decision, shall be collected from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, according to the tariff specified in Article 11,
7- The litigation costs of 329.00 TL incurred by the plaintiff shall be collected from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, as they exceed the litigation costs incurred by the defendant.
8- The advance appeal fee shall be refunded upon request of the interested party. It was unanimously decided on 17.04.2014.