TC
YÜCE
Law Office
NUMBER: 811/2014
DECISION NO: 2015/14090
DATE OF DECISION: 04/14/2015
IF AN EMPLOYEE IS MADE TO WORK OUTSIDE THEIR JOB, THEY MAY DEMAND PAYMENT FOR THIS FROM THE EMPLOYER.
The plaintiff requested a decision for the payment of unpaid wages and outstanding period wages. The local court decided to partially accept the case. Although the parties appealed through their lawyers during the judgment period, after hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed, and a decision was made if deemed necessary:
The plaintiff claimed that he worked as an oiler for the employer in accordance with the Maritime Labor Law, that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer, and that he was owed unpaid wages and outstanding claims.
The defendant requested that the case be dismissed, claiming that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause.
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the defendant had just cause to terminate the employment contract, that the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to wages for the remaining period, and that he was entitled to unpaid wages for the last month worked, and partially upheld the claim.
The decision was appealed by both parties.
1-Considering the evidence obtained from the documents in the file and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, all of the plaintiffs’ appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph are unfounded.
2-
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the fixed-term employment contract was terminated by the employer for a valid reason before its expiration.
Article 7 of the Maritime Labor Law No. 854 refers to three types of contracts with seafarers. Accordingly, the employment contract with the shipowner may be fixed-term, for the duration of the voyage, or indefinite.
In the present case, the employment contract dated December 24, 2008, was concluded for a period of nine months. The plaintiff’s job was specified as deckhand. However, the plaintiff had the hole in the ship’s sewage tank repaired by welding and had the tank cleaned. When the plaintiff requested additional payment from the employer for this work, the employer stated that this payment would not be made. Furthermore, in a letter dated November 12, 2008, addressed to the employer, the employee stated that he was entitled to this payment and that it was not right for the employer to threaten to dismiss him for demanding this right.
The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by a disciplinary committee decision dated November 12, 2008, based on this petition. The disciplinary committee decision stated that the plaintiff caused unrest on the ship and used foul language. Although the employer submitted two reports to prove this situation, they failed to prove the accuracy of the content of these reports. The employer is justified in claiming that the reason for the justified termination is the salary received.
The court must accept the plaintiff’s claim for the remaining period’s salary based on the re-evaluation of the expert report in the case file.
CONCLUSION:
On April 14, 2015, it was unanimously decided to REVERSE the appealed decision for the reasons stated above and to refund the appeal fee previously paid to the relevant party upon request.