9th Law Office
Case Number: 2021/1317
Decision Number: 2021/5702
“Text of the Judgment”
REGIONAL COURT
COURT: … 7th
Civil Division CASE TYPE:
FIRST INSTANCE LABOR
COURT: … 43rd Labor Court
It has been requested that the decision rendered in the case between the parties be reviewed through an appeal by the plaintiff’s attorney, and it has been determined that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. After hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge regarding the case file, the file was reviewed, the relevant matters were discussed, and an assessment was made:
CASE SUMMARY
Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the client began working at the defendant bank on March 27, 1989, and worked for a long time in various departments of the bank as a systems operator assistant, computer operator, assistant manager, service clerk, and assistant manager; that the defendant bank implemented an examination system for promotions; and that the client took the exam in 2011, applied for promotion to the position of manager, but upon investigating why his name was not on the list, he learned that he had not been admitted to the exam due to a “not suitable” evaluation for the senior title of records manager in 2010; as a result… he filed a lawsuit with the 14th Labor Court under case number 2011/443, seeking annulment.
First, the court rejected the request for annulment on the grounds that an employee cannot file a lawsuit for annulment regarding their personnel rating; however, the 9th Chamber of the High Court of Appeal decided to review the merits of the case, reasoning that the matter would lead to changes in the employee’s personal rights, such as personnel rating, seniority, title, and promotion.
After the local court’s decision was overturned, the local court re-registered Decision No. 2014/2036. The decision dated September 26, 2016, No. 2016/1967, along with Decision No. 2016/16632, it was confirmed and finalized that the application made against the client had damaged the plaintiff’s professional reputation and dignity, caused him to suffer harm, disrupted his mental and physical balance, worsened his psychological state, and constituted a serious violation of his personal rights.
.
The plaintiff claimed that he was emotionally and financially exhausted due to the aforementioned action and, without prejudice to his right to additional claims, requested compensation of 101,000.00 TL for emotional damages and 1,000.00 TL for material damages, along with the payment of statutory interest accruing from the date of the incident. Additionally, the plaintiff has filed a lawsuit requesting a ruling to recover litigation costs and attorney’s fees from the defendant.
Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s attorney argued that the plaintiff’s claims are baseless and that the defendant has not suffered any material or emotional harm, and requested that the case be dismissed.
>Su mmary of the First Instance Court’s Decision:
Although the negative employment record issued to the plaintiff was later annulled by the court, the claim for non-pecuniary damages was partially granted on the grounds that the plaintiff faced difficulties in their professional and social circles, suffered damage to their professional reputation, experienced hardship, and sustained non-pecuniary harm; however, it was later dismissed.
Summary of the Regional Court’s Decision:
The Regional Court of Justice rejected the plaintiff’s attorney’s objection on the grounds that “there was no evidence that the defendant acted unfairly toward the plaintiff or that the plaintiff intentionally behaved in a manner unfit for a higher position,” while the defendant’s attorney’s objection was accepted on its merits.
Appeal:
The attorneys for the opposing parties filed separate appeals against the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Appeal:
The plaintiff’s attorney filed an appeal against the decision within the statutory time limit.
Reasoning:
1- Based on the evidence derived from the documents in the file and the legal grounds upon which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals, which fall outside the scope of the following paragraph, are not admissible.
2- In the specific dispute, the plaintiff sought both material and moral damages on the grounds that his participation in a promotion exam was prevented due to his negative employment record. In the case filed by the plaintiff to have the negative performance rating revoked, the trial court stated the following:
“During the plaintiff’s employment at the defendant bank, while the average of the performance evaluation scores for 9 out of the last 10 years was 95.6, the performance score completed at the end of 2010 was 85, and while the phrase ‘capable of holding a higher position’ has been included since 2001, the fact that one of the performance evaluators provided an opinion stating ‘negligible,’ prevents the plaintiff from taking the promotion exam; performance records must be prepared in accordance with objective principles; Considering that the 2010 record score of 85 does not comply with objective principles and the reason for this has not been specified, the plaintiff’s request is well-founded. The decision to annul the registration score was approved by our Chamber’s decision dated 09/26/2016 and numbered 2016/21967.” Plaintiff No. 2016/16632.
.
Following the conclusion of the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the employment record, the plaintiff filed a claim for both compensatory and non-compensatory damages in connection with the present case. For non-compensatory damages to be awarded, there must be a serious disturbance and imbalance in the moral well-being of the individual, such as an insult to honor and dignity or an infringement of personal rights resulting from unlawful acts and conduct.
Although the negative credit record issued to the plaintiff was subsequently revoked, considering factors such as the plaintiff’s position at the bank, previous credit ratings, and length of service at the bank, it is evident that the plaintiff was in a difficult situation regarding their professional and social environment, that their professional reputation was damaged, and that they were wronged; therefore, it must be ruled that the plaintiff’s claim for non-pecuniary damages should not be accepted to a reasonable extent.
CONCLUSION: The decision of the Court of First Instance under appeal and the decision of the Regional Court upholding the appeal on its merits have been SET ASIDE and DECLARED NULL AND VOID; the case file has been returned to the Regional Court that rendered the decision; a copy of the arbitration award has been sent to the Court of First Instance; the appeal was filed in advance. On March 8, 2021, it was decided by unanimous vote to refund the decision fee to the relevant party upon request.