Law Office
Case Number: 2016/26856
Decision Number: 2019/22796
“Text of Justice”
COURT: FIRST INSTANCE CIVIL COURT (LABOR)
Following the decision rendered in the case between the parties, the defendant-plaintiff’s attorney requested that the appeal be reviewed, and it was determined that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. After hearing the report prepared by the investigating judge for the case file, the file was reviewed, the matter was discussed, and an assessment was made:
JUDGMENT
A) Summary of the Plaintiff-Defendant’s Request for a Consolidated File:
The plaintiff-defendant in the consolidated case is the employee’s attorney; his client began working for the defendant in 1997, his seniority and other rights were granted to him on 31/12/2004, he was hired by the … company, then rejoined the defendant company in 2013, his insurance started in 2005, his last salary was 2,826.00 TL per month, and he works in technical service personnel, technical support, after-sales service, elevator maintenance, and repair. On 02/19/2014, the company owner and general manager … informed him that he would not be paid and he was removed from the factory under security supervision. On 02/24/2014, …
Notary notification No. 4863 stated that the plaintiff had made copies of restricted and controlled documents, that there were 43 documents in his safe on 20/02/2014, that his employment contract had therefore been terminated in accordance with Article 25/II-e of the Labor Law, and that a company had been established as claimed by the defendant. It is stated that the company required a capital of 1,000,000 TL, that the client barely made ends meet with the salary he received and had no savings whatsoever,
that he never had any intention or preparation to establish a company, that the defendant’s claims are completely fabricated, that the company documents are circulating in the market and that the defendant claims to have control over them, that the documents are in the hands of many people, that if the client had intended to steal, he would not have kept these documents in his safe, and that despite the unjust termination, the client’s employment contract had not been paid. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay severance pay, notice pay, compensation for bad faith, and annual leave pay.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response – Consolidated File Plaintiff:
Defendant – in the consolidated file, the plaintiff’s employer’s lawyer; The client company has been a reputable name among elevator companies since 1985, having pioneered and marketed many technical innovations; almost all of the company’s employees have been working for many years, even continuing to work after retirement; the company owner is personally responsible for technical production; in addition, information considered professional secrets regarding the products it provides has been copied by the plaintiff, who has worked for many years, and has been incorporated into a new structure with these documents;
the documents kept by the plaintiff have been found and recorded; the company operates in accordance with TS EN ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Standards; the information is referred to as “controlled documents,” and the preparation, approval, publication, distribution, revision, cancellation, and storage of controlled documents are defined as controlled documents in the document titled “Control of Documents,” which specifies to whom controlled copies are to be distributed.
The plaintiff claimed that the decision-making authority lies with the general manager, that stamped copies of approved documents are delivered to the relevant departments and individuals in exchange for their signatures, that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause, and that he has no claim, requesting that the case be dismissed. Furthermore, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to pay compensation of TL 5,000,000 for breach of the duty of loyalty.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
The court partially accepted the main claim and ruled that severance pay, notice pay, and annual leave entitlements should be collected from the defendant employer and dismissed the consolidated claim.
D) Appeal:
The defendant-joinder plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
E) Grounds:
1- Based on the legal grounds on which the decision is based and the evidence in the file, the defendant-joinder plaintiff’s objections outside the scope of the following subparagraph are inappropriate.
2- There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer for just cause.
While the plaintiff claims that the employment contract was terminated unjustly, the defendant employer argues that the termination was justified on the grounds that the plaintiff photocopied certain documents belonging to the workplace without permission and without authority to do so.
Although the plaintiff’s claims for severance pay and notice pay were accepted by the court on the grounds that “… a report was obtained from a tripartite expert committee to determine whether the duty of loyalty had been breached and that the plaintiff’s claims were not consistent with the report obtained…”, the conclusion reached is not consistent with the scope of the file.
Article 25 of Labor Law No. 4857