Summary:
the file did not claim that the plaintiff had trespassed on the computer containing information about the illness of the institution’s doctor, no justification for the termination of such an event was made, the wording unrelated to the file was incorrect on the decision, the decision could not be audited, the decision was therefore without justification, the parties’ claims and defenses, and the decision had to be overturned for this reason only in order to examine and discuss the termination action.
T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Base No:2014/24361
Decision No:2014/37164
K. Date:4.12.2014
COURT : ISTANBUL ANADOLU 15. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
DATE : 10/06/2014
NUMBER : 2013/1703-2014/341
CASE : The plaintiff requested that the termination be invalidated and that his/her return to work be decided.
The local court has decided to dismiss the case.
Although the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the trial period; As a matter of nature, it was decided to refuse the request for a hearing, to conduct the examination on the documents, but for the case file
The Examining Magistrate .. after listening to the report edited by, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s representative claims that the plaintiff’s occupational health and safety manager did not engage in any conduct at the workplace that could constitute a valid reason for termination in accordance with hiring and working conditions, did not work during the notice or warning period, and did not exhibit any negative legal inadequacy or unsuitability. did not cooperate, did not respond to calls to rectify the plaintiff’s request for cooperation, did not provide information about the activities carried out by the workplace physicians in the medical unit and the record-keeping procedures, and it is not clear whether the allegations comply with labor legislation and regulations, Therefore, the defendant’s defense should have been requested on November 24, 2012, from the workplace physicians and the company’s human resources manager.
All these draft defense findings and the defense letters shared provided access to the personal health workplace physicians, leading the plaintiff to file a lawsuit alleging defamation. the plaintiff initiated a disciplinary investigation due to the audit, and the defendant company’s report alleged that the termination of unauthorized access during the examination of the files in the personal health workplace health and safety unit was contrary to the law and ethical principles, but these allegations are completely unfounded and contrary to the legislation,
Pursuant to the former Occupational Safety and Health and Social Security Legislation No. 6331, as amended by Law No. 4857, the plaintiff has requested reinstatement to their position, as will be understood from the plaintiff’s review and the clear statement of the rule of law.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s representative argued that the plaintiff’s termination of the employment contract and the written notification of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision dated March 29, 2013, based on this behavior, constituted valid grounds for the employer to pay all rights arising from the provision of occupational health and safety services.
Occupational safety specialists, occupational health physicians, and other health personnel are assigned to workplaces where employees are exposed to health and safety risks, taking into account that the privacy and health monitoring of these employees must be protected. The Ministry of Health is responsible for investigating the employee’s reputation.
From a protection perspective, the plaintiff’s employees, who are responsible for keeping confidential health information confidential, are under the responsibility of the workplace physicians, and the workplace physician who files and reviews documents related to personal information identified and analyzed without the plaintiff’s permission and reviews the files, Nurse Kamuran Bayraktar stated, “You can review the files and documents containing the personal information of the individuals found in the plaintiff’s files without the company physician.
”The document for this type of work states that the relevant person must be present at the workplace, and that the employer must keep the personal information of individuals confidential, with the support of the corporate audit department and legal department, and only with the support of the documents and files mentioned above.
Otherwise, the employee will lose their job. The plaintiff, acting contrary to the employer’s rules and procedures, was obliged to keep the employees’ health information confidential due to “doctor-patient confidentiality.” By examining the employees’ documents and schedules, the plaintiff violated the patients’ privacy rights. Considering the action in question, the plaintiff’s defense regarding the negative relationship between the plaintiff and the workplace physicians, the workplace physicians’ efforts to expose themselves rather than sharing the plaintiff’s shortcomings with the employer, whether this situation is related to the coordination between the parties,
the fact that the incident in question weakened or even eliminated the negative relationship between the parties, however, the claimant’s working conditions, which are coordinated with the workplace physicians, are quite important in terms of compliance, the trust relationship between the employer and the claimant has been destroyed as a result of the claimant’s actions, and it has become impossible to continue the employment relationship, a complaint has been filed against the claimant for disciplinary offenses, as a result of the assessment, it was stated that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was based on valid reasons, and the dismissal of the case was requested.
C) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause.
D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
E) Reasoning:
The court’s decision in this specific case was based on the following reasoning: “…the plaintiff’s computer contained information about the institution’s doctor’s illness, which only the institution’s doctor could access. The plaintiff’s computer was damaged when the plaintiff accessed the institution’s doctor’s computer without permission in order to access this information, in violation of institutional security. For this reason, the plaintiff was dismissed from his job.
However, it was concluded that the termination decision was justified and the claim should be dismissed. The termination decision was made on the grounds that such an incident could not be alleged if the institution doctor’s file containing information about the plaintiff’s health status was accessed without permission. The grounds for this were that the written statements unrelated to the file were incorrectly written, the decision was not subject to regulation, the decision was unjust, and therefore the parties had to discuss the termination in the claims and defenses of the case and a decision had to be made, and these were the only reasons for these irregularities.
F) Conclusion: