Law Office
Case Number: 2015/22089
Decision Number: 2015/29606
“Text of Justice”
COURT: LABOR COURT
CASE: The plaintiff requested that the termination be declared invalid and that a reinstatement decision be issued.
The regional court dismissed the case.
After hearing the report prepared by the Investigating Judge for the case file, the file was examined and the necessity was discussed and evaluated:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff started working at the defendant company’s workplace in Dudullu on 03.12.2010, and despite working overtime at the workplace, the overtime wages were not paid, so the plaintiff constantly asked the employer to pay them. Therefore, the defendant verbally terminated the employment contract in order to intimidate other employees, …. There was no place to eat at the workplace, so the plaintiff and the workers went out for their lunch break. When they returned to the workplace, the workplace manager had left the workplace without permission. The plaintiff stated that he had worked 2 hours of overtime every day since he started working, that he had not neglected his work, and that he had not been absent from work, and requested that the termination be declared invalid.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:Defendant’s attorney:
The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause; the defendant employer employed the plaintiff as a new sales representative within the company; the plaintiff worked at the company; the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated in accordance with Article 25/2-e of Labor Law No. 4857. that the plaintiff left the workplace without permission and without informing the workplace during working hours, that he played games with his friends in a coffee house, that the plaintiff stated both verbally and in writing that his employment contract was terminated and requested that the case be dismissed, that the plaintiff reported that he had completed the visits he was required to make during the day as a courier employee,
but did not complete them, that the plaintiff flexibly
working hours and breaks, the employer caught him playing okey in a cafe, which was considered negative behavior from the employer’s perspective, but it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence that this behavior was based on justifiable grounds under the employment contract. Therefore, it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that it was not serious enough to warrant termination and that the termination by the employer was valid.
D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
E) Reasoning:
Article 20/II.c.1 of Labor Law No. 4857 places the burden of proof that the termination is based on valid reasons on the defendant employer.
In fulfilling this burden of proof, the employer must first prove that the termination complies with the formal requirements.Accordingly, the termination must be made in writing, documented in certain cases where the employee requests a defense, and the reasons for termination on which the written termination is based must be clearly and concretely stated. Once it is understood that the employer has fulfilled the formal requirements, the stage of proving that the reasons for termination are valid (or justified) in terms of content will be reached.
Article 18 of Labor Law No. 4857 grants the employer the authority to terminate the employment contract for reasons arising from the employee’s conduct and competence. The purpose of termination due to the employee’s conduct is not to punish or impose sanctions for the employee’s previous acts in breach of the employment contract, but to eliminate the possibility of the breach of contractual obligations continuing or recurring.
For the employment contract to be terminated due to the employee’s conduct, the employee must have acted in breach of the employment contract. If the employee has acted in breach of the contract due to their fault and this has negatively affected the employment relationship, termination based on the employee’s conduct will be valid. On the other hand, since the employee cannot be held responsible for actions that breach the contract but are not based on fault or negligence, there can be no valid termination based on the employee’s conduct.
Except for the reasons specified in Article 25 of the same law, reasons arising from the employee’s conduct and competence are not of this nature but are reasons that significantly affect the performance of work at the workplace.
Where the employee’s conduct or incompetence renders the continuation of the employment relationship unreasonable and unreasonable from the employer’s perspective, the termination must be deemed to be based on valid grounds.
The employer, who bears the burden of proof, must also prove that the plaintiff’s conduct or incompetence caused negative consequences in the workplace for valid and justified reasons and that the employment relationship became intolerable.
According to the file, the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated in accordance with Article 25/II-e of Labor Law No. 4857. The defendant
The defendant also claimed that the plaintiff was caught playing okey in a coffee house on September 10, 2012, and that his employment contract was terminated for this reason. According to witness statements, the plaintiff was at the coffeehouse between 12:00 and 13:00, and that distribution workers, like the plaintiff, determined when to take their daily breaks and generally took their breaks during these hours, and that this could not be a reason for termination and that the termination was invalid. The court’s rejection of the case for the above reason is erroneous. Pursuant to Article 20/3 of Labor Law No. 4857, our Chamber has rendered the following decision.
DECISION:
For the reasons explained above;REJECTION OF THE COURT’S DECISION,
INVALIDITY OF THE PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION AND REINSTATEMENT,
If the defendant employer fails to hire the plaintiff despite the plaintiff’s application within the legal time limit, the amount of compensation to be paid shall be determined based on the defendant’s gross salary for four months, taking into account the plaintiff’s seniority and the reason for termination.
If the plaintiff files a reinstatement lawsuit against the employer within the time limit and is entitled to wages and other rights for a maximum period of 4 months until the decision becomes final,
As the salary has already been paid in advance, it cannot be recovered again.
The plaintiff’s litigation costs of TL 307.60 shall be recovered from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, and the defendant shall bear his own litigation costs.
A fee of TL 1,500, according to the tariff in force on the date of the decision, shall be collected from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff.
Upon the request of the relevant person, the objection fee paid in advance shall be refunded to him/her,
It was unanimously decided on 10/22/2015.