9th Civil Chamber 2019/94 E., 2019/10769 K.
“Text of Justice”
COURT: ISTANBUL REGIONAL COURT 30th CHAMBER CIVIL SECTION
CASE: The plaintiff requested that the termination be declared invalid, that he be reinstated, and that the legal consequences be determined.
Th e local court accepted the case.
The defendant’s lawyer appealed the First Instance Court’s decision to accept the case.
The Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 30th Civil Division, rejected the defendant’s appeal on its merits.
Although the defendant’s attorney objected within the time limit to the decision of the Istanbul Regional Criminal Court of Peace, 30th Division, the case was reviewed after hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge and evaluated as necessary:
JUDGMENT
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the defendant company employed the plaintiff as a worker in the logistics returns department from May 13, 2013, to July 22, 2016, that the employment contract was terminated without valid cause on that date, and that the client’s employment contract was terminated without valid cause by the termination notice dated July 22, 2016, and requested the reinstatement of the plaintiff.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for a valid reason due to his behavior negatively affecting the workflow, that the continuation of the employment contract became unexpected for the employer, that the plaintiff exhibited irresponsible behavior that negatively affected the work organization by failing to participate in overtime without excuse, and that the plaintiff’s salary was high and there were garnishment orders, arguing that the follow-up work for the garnishment orders increased the workload and negatively affected work planning, and requested that the case be dismissed.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
The court found that the plaintiff did not provide records of when and on which days he was late, that the plaintiff frequently took leave, that the documents showing the leave taken by the plaintiff were not presented, and that no concrete evidence was presented as to how the plaintiff’s leave caused the production at the workplace to stop or slow down. The court also found that the workload was the reason for the plaintiff’s dismissal due to the garnishment of his salary.
However, witness statements indicate that despite the wage garnishment, the defendant had other employees working at the workplace, that the garnishment of the employee’s wages was a severe sanction, that no warning was given, and that the termination code reported by the defendant to the Social Security Institution (SGK) was “4 – Termination of indefinite employment contract without just cause,” and the plaintiff’s employment contract was clearly stated to have been terminated unjustly by the defendant to the SGK, the case was accepted.
D) Appeal:
The defendant’s attorney appealed the first instance court’s decision.
E) Summary of the Regional Court’s Decision:
According to the workplace file sample submitted to the regional appeal court by the defendant employer, the plaintiff was punished with a warning penalty due to the absence report dated 21.01.2014, and the plaintiff’s absence, which was cited as the reason for his dismissal, could not be proven with records such as absence reports. Regarding the dismissal based on the July 8, 2016, report of absence from work during vacation, the statements of the witnesses heard by the defendant are not sufficient on their own, as they continue to work at the workplace. The plaintiff took leave with the approval of the defendant company’s representative and was not given any warning before being dismissed for the 10-month salary deduction. Since it could not be concretely proven that the plaintiff’s behavior caused negative consequences at the workplace, the defendant’s attorney’s application was rejected on its merits.
F) Appeal application:
The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision within the legal time limit.
G) Grounds:
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract was justifiably terminated by the employer due to the employee’s conduct contrary to honesty and loyalty.
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 incompetence. Termination due to the employee’s conduct does not aim to punish or impose sanctions for previous acts contrary to the employment contract; it aims to prevent the risk of continued or repeated breach of contractual obligations. For the employment contract to be terminated due to the employee’s conduct, there must be conduct contrary to the employment contract. If the employee’s misconduct breaches the contract and negatively affects the employment relationship as a result, termination based on the employee’s conduct is valid.
On the other hand, since the employee cannot be held liable for acts that violate the contract but are not due to the employee’s fault or negligence, no valid reason for termination arising from the employee’s conduct can be specified.
Reasons arising from the employee’s conduct and incompetence are reasons that significantly affect work performance in the workplace, in addition to the reasons specified in Article 25 of the same Law, although they are not of the same nature. Where the continuation of the employment relationship cannot be expected to be important and reasonable for the employer due to the employee’s conduct or incompetence, the reason for termination should be considered valid.
In the specific dispute in question, the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by a termination letter dated July 22, 2016. The letter states:
“During the continuation of your employment, your frequent tardiness to work and requests for leave before working hours due to family problems, as well as your frequent absences, have negatively affected the workflow.
This situation has also disrupted the workplace harmony by causing your colleagues to need more manpower. Furthermore, it has been determined that numerous enforcement proceedings have been initiated by various creditors and that your salary has been garnished; this has caused significant time loss in the human resources, legal, and accounting departments, negatively affecting the work process and workplace organization. You were requested to provide a written defense regarding your behavior, but you failed to submit any written defense.
Therefore, your employment contract was terminated on July 22, 2016, in accordance with Articles 17 and 18 of Labor Law No. 4857.
Although the claims in the file that the plaintiff frequently arrived late to work and wanted to leave early from working hours could not be proven by the evidence and witness statements submitted to the file by the defendant, enforcement proceedings were initiated against the employer, and 12 wage garnishment orders were served to the defendant employer by enforcement officers on various dates in the file.
Based on the information and documents in the file, it is understood that the plaintiff caused problems at the workplace and that the termination by the defendant employer for the stated reasons was not justified but based on valid grounds. For the reasons stated, it was deemed appropriate to accept the case rather than reject it with written grounds.
Pursuant to Article 20/3 of the Labor Law No. 4857, our Chamber has decided as follows.
Pursuant to Article 20/3 of Labor Law No. 4857, our Chamber has decided as follows.
RULING: For the reasons explained above;
The decisions of the 28th Chamber of the Istanbul 1st Regional Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance,
DECLARATION OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE CASE,
The advance fee of TL 29.20 paid by the plaintiff shall be deducted from the decision fee of TL 44.40 to be collected, and the remaining decision fee of TL 15.20 shall be collected from the plaintiff and recorded as revenue in the treasury.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>The 300,000 TL paid by the defendant shall exceed the litigation costs incurred by the plaintiff. The litigation costs shall be collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant.
The fee of 2,275.00 TL, determined according to the tariff in force on the date of the decision, shall be collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant.
Upon request, the previously paid appeal fee shall be refunded to the defendant, the file shall be sent to the Criminal Court of First Instance, and a copy of the decision shall be sent to the Regional Court of Justice.
The decision was made unanimously on May 13, 2019.