Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Determination of Actual Wages

Supreme Court Decision Regarding the Determination of Actual Wages

SUPREME COURT 21st Civil Chamber

CASE NO: 2013/17594

DECISION NO: 2014/2401

The plaintiff requested a decision confirming that he worked at the workplace belonging to the defendant employer.

As stated in the court decision, the request was rejected.

Upon appeal of the judgment by the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, it was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit, and the following decision was made after reviewing the documents in the file and the report prepared by the Investigating Judge.

DECISION

1-Taking into account the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the compelling reasons on which the judgment is based, it was decided to reject all objections of the defendant SGK.

2-Regarding the plaintiff’s appeal:

The case concerns the plaintiff’s request for the determination of the wage he received in return for the work he did.

The court’s decision to reject the request for determination of the actual wage is based on insufficient examination and investigation.

It is contrary to the normal course of life for a qualified and experienced worker to work for the minimum wage according to the nature of the work performed. In this case, it cannot be considered that the employer cannot prove the contrary of the documents prepared based on the minimum wage.

In the specific case, it was alleged that part of the wage shown in the insurance base at the defendant’s workplace was paid through a bank, and the remaining part was paid in cash in an envelope in a room at the workplace after the workers lined up. Many workers have filed lawsuits to determine their actual wages. In lawsuits of the same nature, a CD containing camera footage from the workplace related to cash payments in envelopes was also submitted to the case file. In this footage, it can be seen that, as alleged, workers were waiting in line in front of a room door, and those who came out were holding thin, long envelopes in their hands.

Witnesses also stated that such a practice existed at the workplace and that the pay slips were unsigned. It is understood that the plaintiff worked as a forklift operator in the packaging department and that the letter from the Eskişehir Chamber of Commerce stated that those doing similar work between 2007 and 2010 could receive wages 30% above the minimum wage.

The court’s duty is to accept the camera recordings presented as evidence in the case as evidence at first glance, to obtain the plaintiff’s personnel file and payroll records for the relevant period from the Social Security Institution, to examine and determine the scope and capacity of the workplace through an expert examination, to refer to the statements of other employees registered in the employer’s payroll records when necessary, compare the employer’s statements with the qualifications of the employees,

focus on whether the employer declared the actual wages according to the seniority and position of the employees, determine whether the plaintiff is a skilled worker whose work for the declared wage is unusual, whether he/she works in a skilled job, and if it is determined that his/her work for the declared wage is unusual, evaluate whether the wages paid by the employer to workers in the same position are correct; if these reports are correct, take these wages as a basis; otherwise, conduct a comparative wage study at workplaces performing similar work, when necessary, from the relevant professional chamber and the Turkish Statistical Institute, and make a decision based on the result obtained.

Therefore, the plaintiff’s requests for re-examination in these respects must be accepted and the judgment must be overturned.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons stated above, it was unanimously decided on February 17, 2014, to OVERTURN the judgment and to refund the appeal fee to the appellant.