TC
Supreme
Court
Decision No: 2014/14603
Decision No: 2015/30987
Date: 3.11.2015
The plaintiff requested that the court order the payment of the license fee.
The local court decided to partially accept the case.
Although the defendant appealed through his lawyer during the criminal proceedings, the case file was reviewed, discussed, and a decision was made if deemed necessary after hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge for the case file:
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff’s attorney summarized in the petition that the client started working at the defendant publishing house named University Publications on 03.04.1990 and worked continuously until 14.01.2013, and that the client did not use paid leave during the notification period due to their busy work life; the plaintiff requests that the defendant be ordered to pay the leave wages.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Based on the expert report and the evidence gathered by the court, the defendant argued that the plaintiff worked continuously at the workplace between April 2, 1990, and January 14, 2013, and took his annual leave on an annual basis. During the hearing of the case in our court, that the employer must prove with a written document that the plaintiff used his annual leave during his period of employment.
However, it argued that the case should be decided on the grounds that it could not be proven that the defendant had accepted this contract unless the employer submitted any documents.
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.
Reason:
1- Considering the items in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph are unfounded.
2- During the conversion of the gross receivable to net by the expert, the calculation of the SGK premium and unemployment insurance deductions falling to the employee’s share is incorrect, without taking into account the “nazar değmesin” (good luck charm).
3- It is unfair that the court did not take into account that the defendant university is exempt from tuition fees in accordance with Article 56/b of Law No. 2547.
4- The decision fails to consider that the failure to specify whether the agreed amounts are net or gross will cause uncertainty in enforcement, which is erroneous and requires reversal.
F) Conclusion:
The appealed decision is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, unanimously decided on November 3, 2015.