9th Civil Chamber 2020/1848 E., 2020/7866 K.
“Text of Justice”
COURT: Labor Court
CASE TYPE: CREDIT
In the petition submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney on 03.06.2020, it was claimed that our Chamber’s decision dated 13.02.2020 and numbered 2016/13686 E. and 2020/2140 K. was based on a fundamental error, and it was requested that the decision be revoked and the ruling be upheld.
Our Chamber decided to exercise its authority to dismiss within six working days as stipulated in Article 26 of Labor Law No. 4857.
After hearing the report prepared for the case by the Investigating Judge, the case was reviewed and evaluated as necessary.
CASE SUMMARY
Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff worked as a butcher at the defendant’s workplace between March 27, 2008, and June 13, 2014, and that his net salary was TL 1,550.00. Claiming that the employment contract was terminated unfairly, the plaintiff requested severance pay, notice pay, and overtime pay from the defendant. Defendant’s
Summary of Response:
The defendant’s lawyer argued that the plaintiff’s negative behavior had become permanent, that he had insulted the foreman and department manager by calling them “dishonorable” on May 26, 2014, that he had attacked his supervisor, that the plaintiff had admitted to this situation, and that the employment contract had been terminated for just cause, requesting that the case be dismissed.
Summary of the Court’s Decision:
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s last gross salary was TL 2,438.11 and that the plaintiff had worked for the defendant company for 6 years, 2 months, and 17 days between March 27, 2008, and June 13, 2014. It was determined that the seniority, notice, and overtime claims could not be proven as stated in the expert report, that the employment contract was terminated as a result of the plaintiff insulting a colleague by calling him “lazy,” but that the word used meant “bit yavrusu” in Turkish.
Since the termination was an issue that should have been resolved with verbal warnings and cautions, it was deemed inappropriate given the actual weight of the contract, unjustified, and requiring compensation, and the case was partially accepted.
Appeal:
The plaintiff’s lawyer appealed the decision.
Reason:
1- Based on the evidence obtained from the documents in the file and the legally valid reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s objections outside the scope of the following paragraph are not appropriate.
2- Whether the employment contract was terminated within the prohibition period is a matter of dispute between the parties.
If justifiable grounds for termination arise from the perspective of the employer or employee, the other party’s right to terminate the employment contract is not unlimited. In this context, Article 26 of Labor Law No. 4857 stipulates two separate periods based on the date the employer learned of the incident and the date the incident occurred.
Termination by an employee or employer who does not resort to termination within these periods is not considered just cause for termination. This period is determined in the Law as six working days from the date the event giving rise to termination was learned and, possibly, one year from the date the event occurred.
While Article 18 of Labor Law No. 1475 contains a similar provision, Labor Law No. 4857 states that the one-year period shall not apply if the employee has a financial interest in the incident. In this case, if the employee has a financial interest in the event that causes just cause for termination, the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract after six business days, regardless of how much time has passed since the event.
The six-day period begins on the day the employee or employer learns of the event that constitutes just cause for termination. The day the event is learned is not counted, and the right to terminate expires at the end of the sixth day, counting the following working days.If the employer is a legal entity, the six-day period begins on the day the competent authority becomes aware of the termination. An inspection investigation into this matter and the disciplinary committee’s review of the incident do not trigger the start of this period. T he day the incident is reported to the competent person or committee marks the beginning of the six-day period.
The one-year period, however, always begins on the day the incident occurred.
The six working days and one-year periods specified in Article 26 of Labor Law No. 4857 provide for separate deprivation of rights. In other words, the right to terminate must be exercised within six working days of learning of the incident and within one year of the incident occurring. The expiration of even one of these periods eliminates the possibility of just termination.
Even if the parties do not specify this due to the nature of the termination period, the judge must take it into account ex officio.
A party exercising the right of termination without notice after the periods specified in this article is deemed to have terminated the contract unjustly and, therefore, severance pay and seniority compensation are paid if the conditions are met.
In the specific dispute, it was determined that the plaintiff called his supervisor Muharrem, with whom he worked at the defendant company, a “liar” and a “coward” and that his employment contract was terminated for this reason.
It is justified for an employer to dismiss an employee for humiliating another employee with derisive and insulting words. Furthermore, it is clear that the word “coward” is used as an insult among the general public.
In the context of this decision, although the court’s acceptance of the claims for severance pay and notice pay on the grounds that the word “incompetent” does not constitute an insult based solely on its dictionary meaning is erroneous, it is necessary to clarify whether the defendant employer exercised its right to terminate the employment contract within the 6-day period stipulated in Article 26 of Law No. 4857. From the file
contents:
The reason for termination is that the incident occurred on May 26, 2014, the plaintiff’s defense was received on the same day, and the plaintiff accepted the termination procedures; however, the termination notice was sent by the employer on June 13, 2014, and the date of dismissal was recorded as June 13, 2014. It was observed that the termination authority provided for by law was not exercised within 6 working days.
In this case, the court’s duty is to investigate the date on which the termination authority was learned and to clarify whether the termination authority was exercised within the legal period. Accordingly, if it is determined that the termination authority was exercised within the period, severance pay and notice pay will be rejected. Consequently,
reaching an erroneous assessment based on insufficient investigation has led to the disruption of a dispute.
Result:
On 09/15/2020, it was unanimously decided to impose an EXCESSIVE fine on the contested decision for the reasons stated above and to refund the previously paid appeal fee to the relevant person upon request.