TC Supreme Court
Law Firm
E. 2016/29524
K. 2017/12122
T. 6.7.2017
The plaintiff has decided on the inval the termination, reinstatement and
the legal consequences of the decision he has probably made.
The local court has decided to accept the case.
Upon the appeal of the defendant’s lawyer during the conviction period, by the Examining Magistrate for the case file
after listening to the edited report, the file was examined, discussed and deemed necessary:
DECISION: A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim: In the article of the termination notice of the defendant employer, the defendant
at work, he worked as the last Editor of Dec between 09/05/2011 and 31/08/2015 , working as follows;
The client often gets sick andat work, he worked as the last Editor of Dec between 09/05/2011 and 31/08/2015 , working as follows;
It states that various diseases are caused by work stress and, considering the location of the company where he works, it is considered that his situation affects the normal functioning of the workplace.
he claims that there will be no change in the conditions of the media sector he received, the termination of the employment contract caused disruption of the employment contract and negativity, and prevented the maintenance of the service relationship, the termination of the employment contract by the employer is not based on a valid reason, his client almost never took sick leave due to illness in the first three years he started working, took sick leave not exceeding one or two days a year, but experienced stress in the last year of his work, due to the diseases caused by these diseases, he should receive more frequent reports, the resulting reports do not exceed a total of 10-12 days in a year,
in addition, the client continues to work even on days when he works from home, works almost 7 days a week, does not even use the annual leave granted to him by the plaintiff, his client is sick and takes leave, it can lead to disruptions and negativity at work (such as shingles and diabetes), his client is in constant contact with teammates as long as he works at the employer, if he gives instructions and information to his friends from home even on the days when he was notified, and informs that the plaintiff’s employee terminated the employment contract without a valid reason, the invalidity of the termination and the fact that he requested a decision on the plaintiff’s extradition should also be stated. B-) Summary of the Respondent’s Reply
The defendant is the employer’s representative, the plaintiff is the owner of Haber Türk TV, and the plaintiff is Haber Türk
He worked as an Editor at the Department of Culture and Arts of TV, the plaintiff’s defense was requested, and
before the dismissal process; he received the report 20 timesThe defendant is the employer’s representative, the plaintiff is the owner of Haber Türk TV, and the plaintiff is Haber Türk
in addition to the reporting days Oct.
claiming the excuse that he did not come to work full day or half day, he did not receive reports many times, the plaintiff’s
the employment contract has not been terminated in the last 6 months, he will be late due to migraines by the manager, due to traffic
He sent an SMS saying that he could not make it to the meeting, that he could not be on the road, that he could not go to the doctor’s appointment, and that he reported to the unit managers at the news meeting that takes place every day between 9.25-He sent an SMS saying that he could not make it to the meeting,
that he could not be on the road, that he could not go to the doctor’s appointment,
and that he reported to the unit managers at the news meeting that takes place every day between 9.25-10.15,
constantly causing inconvenience, inspection, traffic jams, etc. claiming that he had experienced situations and did not participate, the plaintiff in this way, he often receives reports and puts forward excuses that lead to negativity in the workplace, while the last
he informed that he left his job as a result of the plaintiff having a work accident and the plaintiff having a work accident as a result of not introducing anyone else to the meeting instead of himself.
At the workplace
stating that work stress has reached the point of getting sick, a long-standinghe informed that he left his job as a result of the plaintiff having a work accident and the plaintiff having a work accident as a result of not introducing anyone else to the meeting instead of himself.
The workplacestating that work stress has reached the point of getting sick, a long-standing
that his approach to his job was eval informed that he left his job as a result of the plaintiff having a work accident and the plaintiff having a work accident as a result of not introducing anyone else to the meeting instead of himself. At the workplace
stating that work stress has reached the point of getting sick, a long-standing
that his approach to his job was evaluated, causing disruptions and negativity in the workplace and in the service,
recognizing that it is an obstacle to maintaining the relationship, asserting that all legal rights of the employment contract have been paid
he has argued that he has been terminated and that the case should be dismissed.
C-) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
At the end of the trial conducted by the court, the defendant of the plaintiff, who was not an employer representative,
started working at the workplace on 09/05/2011 with an indefinite term employment contractthe end of the trial conducted by the court, the defendant of the plaintiff, who was not an employer representative,
started working at thd of the trial conducted by the court, the defendant of the plaintiff, who was not an employer representative,
started working at the workplace on 09/05/2011 with an indefinite term employment contract, and
He worked as an Editor according to the Labor Law No. 4857, in the employment contract signed by the defendant employer on 31/08/2015.
and 18.
The one who filed this lawsuit within the 1-month lapse period starting from the termination date, according to article,
is an employee with more than 6 months of seniority.
it was understood that there were also more than 30 employees in the workplace where he worked, that the plaintiff was covered by job security and that the legal interest was determined and accepted. As a result of all these determinations, from the examination of all the records belonging to the plaintiff employee submitted to the file by the found defendantas understood that there were also more than 30 employees in the workplace where he worked, that the plaintiff was covered by job security and that the legal interest was determined and accepted.
As a result of all these determinations, from the examination of all the records belonging to the plaintiff employee submitted to the file by the found defendant
The burden of proof lies with him/her; According to the reason given in the notification
termination , the plaintiff’s job description, productivity, the employer’s corporate principles, whether the necessary workplace rules were followed , whether they were determined objectively and concretely in advance during the examination together with witness statements , the plaintiff often receives notifications and offers excuses, this leads to negativity in the workplace, finally, the failure to appoint a replacement for someone who is about to enter a meeting, and in the plaintiff’s statements about problems related to his job, work stress manifests itself, he gets to the point of getting sick,
considering his approach to his job for a long time, it was claimed that he created disruptions and disadvantages at work and prevented the maintenance of the service relationship, although the reason for termination was made, there was no dispute between the parties on the dates indicated to the plaintiff, how correct was the behavior attributed to the plaintiff employee, the defendant acted contrary to the contract and as a result, the employment relationship was negatively affected by the employer, which was the subject of the lawsuit, which was not specified for what material reason, clearly contrary to the contract could not be Deciphered,
it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that the employee cannot be held responsible for his behavior, the plaintiff does not have a duty for the employee’s behavior, the valid reason for termination cannot be directly mentioned about working without warning or warning due to the termination of the employment contract, termination of the contract due to actions attributed to the plaintiff would be contrary to the principle that termination is the last resort.t was deci
The decision has been appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
E-) Reason:
The first paragraph of Article 20/II of Labor Law No. 4857 clearly states that the termination is based on valid reasons,
and this burden is imposed on the defendant employer.
When fulfilling the burden of proof, the employer must first prove that the termination complies with the formal requirements.
Accordingly, after carrying out the termination in writing, in cases where the employee wishes to defend themselves,
the employer must document the grounds for termination based on the content of the written termination notice,
and demonstrate them in a concrete and clear manner.
Once it is established that the employer has fulfilled the formal requirements,
the process of proving the validity (or justification) of the grounds for termination will begin.
Pursuant to Article 18 of the Labor Code No. 4857, the employer is responsible for the employee’s conduct and competence,
and has the authority to terminate the employment contract based on the authority granted to them. In cases of termination due to the employee’s conduct,the purpose is to address the employee’s violation of the employment contract,
which the employer had previously agreed not to penalize or impose sanctions for; the employee’s continued breach of contractual obligations,and to eliminate the likelihood of recurrence.
For the termination of the employment contract due to the employee’s conduct,
the employee must have engaged in conduct contrary to the employment contract. The employee’s
conduct must be at fault, contrary to the contract, and result in a negative impact on the employment relationship.In such cases, the employee’s conduct constitutes valid grounds for termination. However,
the employer cannot be held liable for the employee’s breach of contract that is not based on fault or negligence,
nor can the employee’s conduct be cited as valid grounds for termination
The reasons arising from the employee’s conduct and fault are regulated in Article 25 of the same Law. In addition to the reasons specified in the article,
it is important to note that reasons that do not fall under this category but
affect the degree of negativity in the workplace are also significant. If the reasons arising from the employee’s conduct or incompetence
are important and reasonable for the employer to continue the employment relationship,
it must be accepted that the termination is based on valid reasons in cases where it could not be reasonably expected.
The employer, who bears the burden of proof, must demonstrate that the employee’s conduct or incompetence is based on a valid and justified reason;
they must also prove that this has caused adverse conditions at the workplace and rendered the employment relationship intolerable.
On the other hand, under what circumstances is termination due to the employee’s incompetence under the Labor Code valid? One of the examples of abilities that would entitle the employee to compensation is frequent illness and taking sick leave.
If the employee frequently takes sick leave, the employer will not be able to benefit from the employee’s work performance, even intermittently.
It is a clear fact that the absenteeism of an employee who frequently falls ill and takes sick leave
will cause adverse effects in the workplace.The justification for frequent illness in the Labor Law is that it is sufficient
and, for example, it is accepted that it causes negativity in the workplace.
The employer cannot terminate the employee’s employment contract within the six-week waiting period in accordance with Article 18/3 of the Labor Code No. 4857, in accordance with Article 25/I of the same law, and in accordance with Article F and Article B.
However, the employee’s
frequent, intermittent sick leave is not evaluated within this scope. If the employee frequently takes sick leave, even if the total duration of the sick leave falls within the waiting period,
if the frequent sick leave causes adverse effects at the workplace,
the employee’s employment contract may be terminated with notice or temporarily. In such a case, the termination is deemed valid and based on a valid
reason.
According to the file contents, the plaintiff took a total of 39 days of sick leave, with 9 days in 2015, 5 days in 2014, 3 days in 2013, and 2 days in 2012.
It is understood that the court also accepted this situation, even though the other years were not considered,
as the plaintiff frequently repeated this in 2015. The plaintiff
was frequently late for or absent from meetings, and records were kept stating that he would go to the doctor,
as well as records stating that he did not attend and did not provide information. In his final
defense, the plaintiff stated that he had problems with his supervisor, that his mental health was impaired, and that he took sick leave
due to his illness.
Based on these concrete material and legal facts, regardless of whether the plaintiff obtained a report or not,
or whether he participated or not, he arrived late to meetings, had problems with his superiors at work, frequently obtained reports, and participated in meetings.
It is understood that his failure to attend work has caused negativity at the workplace.
In the case of an employee who causes negativity at the workplace and makes the employment relationship unbearable for an extended period,
the principle of last resort cannot be invoked to determine the validity and effectiveness of the termination. For these reasons, the rejection of the claim for termination on valid grounds
is erroneous, and it should have been accepted with a written justification.
Our Chamber has rendered the following decision in accordance with Article 20/3 of the Labor Code No. 4857.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the aforementioned grounds;
1. The court decision is REVERSED AND CANCELLED,
2. The case is dismissed,
3. Since the court fee was paid in advance, there is no need to collect it again,
4. The plaintiff’s litigation costs are left as they are,
5. Court fee amount of 1,980.00 TL, determined according to the tariff in effect on the date of the decision, shall be determined by the plaintiff’s attorney and
paid to the defendant,
6. The advance appeal fee paid shall be refunded to the defendant on July 6, 2017, in accordance with the request, by unanimous
decision.