Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals, Civil Division, E. 2014/33001, K. 2016/4881, T. 7.3.2016
Determination of the compensation requested in the petition and not to be accepted with the petition (in accordance with the principle of procedural economy – the compensation requested by the plaintiff due to the termination of the employment contract must arise from the same relationship as the compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled, and a decision must be made on this basis).
EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE CASE (A claim arising from the employment contract and not requested in the petition in accordance with the principle of procedural economy, which must arise from the same relationship, the plaintiff’s entitlement to warning compensation will be assessed in terms of warning compensation)
PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL ECONOMY (In accordance with the principle of procedural economy, compensation arising from an employment contract due to the work performed, which is claimed in the petition, may be claimed provided that the plaintiff’s claim for compensation due to the termination of the employment contract is rejected or decided on the basis of the plaintiff’s rightfulness, in accordance with the claim for compensation arising from the same relationship).
4857/m. 17
6100/m. 176
SUMMARY: The case is a labor claim case.
It is accepted that a claim item related to the work, arising from the substance of the employment contract and in accordance with the principle of procedural economy, which was not requested in the petition, may be requested in the appeal petition. The plaintiff claimed notice compensation during the appeal proceedings, which was not claimed in the complaint due to the termination of the employment contract. Based on the stated principle and since it arises from the same relationship, a decision must be made on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation. It is incorrect to reject this claim on the grounds that the notice compensation was not claimed in the complaint and cannot be claimed through appeal.
CASE:
The plaintiff requested a decision on whether they would receive severance pay, overtime pay, salary, national holiday and general holiday pay, weekly holiday pay, and annual leave pay.
The local court decided to partially accept the case.
Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed during the sentencing phase, after hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge for the case, the case was reviewed, discussed, and deemed necessary:
DECISION: A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff claims to have worked for companies hired through tenders belonging to the defendant company, that he was dismissed on 31.12.2008, that his employment contract was terminated, and requests that the defendants decide on the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, official holiday pay, weekly leave pay, and annual leave pay.
B-) Summary of the Response of the Responding Party:
In its response, the defendant requested that the case be dismissed on the grounds that, according to the contract between the defendant and the other defendant, the administration was not liable for anything, and that the other defendant was not a party to the administration’s employment contract and that the parties to the employment contract were the other defendant and the plaintiff.
Acting on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiffs, who worked for the company for years between 2006 and 2008, are preparing to request a signed waiver in any lawsuit related to the company’s affairs and claim that they left the company during this period, were dismissed on December 31, 2008, and have no claims.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Based on the expert report and the evidence gathered by the court, the defendant unjustly terminated the plaintiff’s employment contract, as it could not be proven that there was insufficient evidence regarding severance pay, overtime pay, national holidays, official holiday pay, annual pay, and the acceptance of leave requests. Furthermore, the claim for one week’s holiday pay and compensation was also rejected.
Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals, Civil Division, E. 2014/33001, K. 2016/4881, T. 7.3.2016
Determination of the compensation requested in the petition and not to be accepted with the petition (in accordance with the principle of procedural economy – the compensation requested by the plaintiff due to the termination of the employment contract must arise from the same relationship as the compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled, and a decision must be made on this basis).
EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE CASE (A claim arising from the employment contract and not requested in the petition in accordance with the principle of procedural economy, which must arise from the same relationship, the plaintiff’s entitlement to warning compensation will be assessed in terms of warning compensation)
PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL ECONOMY (In accordance with the principle of procedural economy, compensation arising from an employment contract due to the work performed, which is claimed in the petition, may be claimed provided that the plaintiff’s claim for compensation due to the termination of the employment contract is rejected or decided on the basis of the plaintiff’s rightfulness, in accordance with the claim for compensation arising from the same relationship).
4857/m. 17
6100/m. 176
SUMMARY: The case is a labor claim case.
It is accepted that a claim item related to the work, arising from the substance of the employment contract and in accordance with the principle of procedural economy, which was not requested in the petition, may be requested in the appeal petition. The plaintiff claimed notice compensation during the appeal proceedings, which was not claimed in the complaint due to the termination of the employment contract. Based on the stated principle and since it arises from the same relationship, a decision must be made on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation. It is incorrect to reject this claim on the grounds that the notice compensation was not claimed in the complaint and cannot be claimed through appeal.
CASE: The plaintiff requested a decision on whether they would receive severance pay, overtime pay, salary, national holiday and general holiday pay, weekly holiday pay, and annual leave pay.
The local court decided to partially accept the case.
Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed during the sentencing phase, after hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge for the case, the case was reviewed, discussed, and deemed necessary:
DECISION:
A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff claims to have worked for companies hired through tenders belonging to the defendant company, that he was dismissed on 31.12.2008, that his employment contract was terminated, and requests that the defendants decide on the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, official holiday pay, weekly leave pay, and annual leave pay.
B-) Summary of the Response of the Responding Party:
In its response, the defendant requested that the case be dismissed on the grounds that, according to the contract between the defendant and the other defendant, the administration was not liable for anything, and that the other defendant was not a party to the administration’s employment contract and that the parties to the employment contract were the other defendant and the plaintiff.
Acting on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiffs, who worked for the company for years between 2006 and 2008, are preparing to request a signed waiver in any lawsuit related to the company’s affairs and claim that they left the company during this period, were dismissed on December 31, 2008, and have no claims.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Based on the expert report and the evidence gathered by the court, the defendant unjustly terminated the plaintiff’s employment contract, as it could not be proven that there was insufficient evidence regarding severance pay, overtime pay, national holidays, official holiday pay, annual pay, and the acceptance of leave requests. Furthermore, the claim for one week’s holiday pay and compensation was also rejected.