Law Office
Case Number: 2016/1423
Decision Number: 2019/11167
“Text of Justice”
COURT: LABOR COURT
The decision rendered in the case between the parties was requested to be reviewed by the plaintiff’s attorney through an appeal, 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 examined, the needs were discussed, and an assessment was made:
JUDGMENT
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client worked as an occupational safety specialist under the quality department at the defendant company between 10/02/2014 -07/07/2014 as an occupational safety specialist under the quality management department at the defendant company, and that she was dismissed from her job on unfounded grounds such as incompatibility with colleagues, communication problems, disrespectful conversations with her manager, and failure to complete her duties. Claiming that the real reason for her dismissal was her pregnancy, the plaintiff demanded overtime compensation from the defendant for discrimination and violation of the principle of equal treatment.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s lawyer stated that the plaintiff worked as a workplace safety specialist between February 10, 2014, and July 7, 2014, and that despite being warned verbally from time to time, she had problems getting along and communicating with her coworkers, was disrespectful to her manager, and therefore failed to complete her duties. He argued that the claim that the plaintiff was dismissed due to pregnancy was incorrect and requested that the case be dismissed.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim of overtime work had been proven, that the service contract had in fact been terminated in bad faith due to the plaintiff’s pregnancy, and that the plaintiff’s witnesses were required to prove the claim, but that the information on the matter was based on what the plaintiff had heard. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to accept that the claim has been proven;
the plaintiff’s witnesses’ statements based on their own feelings are not sufficient to accept that the claim has been proven; additionally, it is understood from the defendant’s witnesses’ statements that most of the employees at the workplace were women and that some of them had even given birth; Therefore, it was decided to partially accept the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claim that the contract was breached in violation of the principle of equality and that the contract was terminated in bad faith was not taken into consideration.
D) Appeal:
The plaintiff’s lawyer appealed the decision.
E) Grounds:
1- Based on the items in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s objections outside the scope of the following paragraph are inappropriate.
2- The dispute centers on whether the employer acted contrary to the obligation of equal treatment and the consequences thereof.
The principle of equal treatment applies across all areas of law and, in terms of labor law, imposes an obligation on the employer not to treat employees differently unless there is a legitimate and objective reason. In this context, the employer’s right to manage is limited. In other words, the prohibition of discrimination by the employer prohibits arbitrary discrimination among employees in the workplace. However, the obligation of equal treatment does not require that all employees be placed in the same position without any discrimination and aims to prevent different treatment of employees with equal status.
In its most fundamental sense, the “Principle of Equality” is stated in Articles 10 and 55 of the Constitution, and Article 10 states that
“Everyone is equal before the law without any discrimination based on language, color, gender, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect, and similar reasons.” The title of Article 55 is “Ensuring Fairness in Wages.” Furthermore,
the principle of equal treatment has been addressed in various forms in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter, the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and the Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organization.
Article 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of July 5, 2006, on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in employment and occupation, under the heading “Return from Maternity Leave,” it states: “A woman on maternity leave has the right to return to her job or an equivalent position under conditions no less favorable than those she had before the leave, and to benefit from any improvements in working conditions that occurred during her absence.”
In the system of Labor Law No. 4857, the obligation of equal treatment is generally included among the employer’s obligations. On the other hand, Article 5, which regulates the principle of equality, does not establish an absolute obligation of equal treatment in all cases. In certain situations, the employer has an obligation of equal treatment.