Unauthorised Copying Of Documents Belonging To The Employer By The Employee Is A Reason For Justified Termination
9th Civil Chamber
Principal Number: 2016/26856
Decision Number: 2019/22796
“Case Law Text”
COURT :PRIMARY LAW COURT (LABOUR)
The appeal of the decision rendered as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant-merging file plaintiff’s attorney, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in due time. After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the necessity was discussed and considered:
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
A) Summary of the Claim of the Plaintiff – Joined Case Defendant:
The plaintiff – the defendant of the merged file employee’s attorney stated that his client started to work for the defendant in 1997, on 31/12/2004, he was given his seniority and other rights and entered the … company, then he was re-entered to the defendant company in 2013, his insurance was started in 2005, the last wage he received was 2. 826,00 TL and he worked as a technical service personnel, technical support, after-sales service, lift maintenance and repair works, on 19/02/2014 he was told by the company owner and general manager … that no payment would be made to them and he was taken out of the factory under the supervision of security, on 24/02/2014 …. Notary Public No. 4863 on 24/02/2014, the plaintiff was notified that the plaintiff copied controlled documents that were forbidden to be copied, that 43 documents were found in his locker on 20/02/2014, and that his employment contract was terminated in accordance with Article 25/II-e of the Labour Law for this reason,
that in order to establish a company as the defendant claimed, a capital of 1. 000,000 TL capital is required to establish a company as the defendant claimed, that his client, who barely survives with the wage he receives and does not have a penny of savings, never had any intention and preparation to establish a company, that the defendant’s allegations are completely fictitious, that the company documents that the defendant claims to be controlled are documents circulating in the market and found in many people, claiming that his client would not have kept these documents in his locker if he had the intention to steal them, that his client’s labour receivables were not paid despite the wrongful termination of his employment contract, and demanded the collection of severance pay, notice pay, bad faith compensation and annual leave pay receivables from the defendant.
B) Summary of the Response of the Defendant – Merged File Plaintiff:
The defendant – the employer’s representative of the combined file plaintiff; The client company has a reputable name among the elevator companies since 1985, it has produced many technical firsts and offered them to the market, almost all of the employees working in the company have been working for many years and even continued to work after retirement, the owner of the company was personally in charge of technical production, the information that would be considered a professional secret of the products he laboured on was copied by the plaintiff who worked and worked for many years and entered a new structuring with these documents, they found the documents kept by the plaintiff and took them under minutes, the company is a company operating under TS EN ISO 9001: 2008 Quality Management Standards, that technical information is called “controlled document”, that in the document titled “document control procedure”, controlled documents are defined as documents whose preparation, approval, publication, distribution, revision, cancellation and storage are kept under control, that the general manager has the authority to decide to whom the controlled copies will be distributed, The plaintiff claimed that the copies with the controlled document stamp on them were delivered to the relevant departments and persons against signature, that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause, that there was no receivable, and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, and in the merged file numbered 2014/97, the defendant requested the collection of 5. 000,00 TL compensation from the defendant.
C) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
The court partially accepted the main case and decided to collect the severance pay, notice pay and annual leave pay receivables from the defendant employer, and dismissed the combined case.
D) Appeal
The decision was appealed by the defendant – the employer’s representative.
E) Grounds:
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence collected and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the appellate objections of the defendant – the plaintiff of the joined file, other than those covered by the following paragraph, are not relevant.
2-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer for just cause.
The plaintiff claimed that his employment contract was terminated unfairly, and the defendant employer defended justified termination on the grounds that the plaintiff photocopied some of the documents belonging to the workplace without authorisation.
Although the court accepted the plaintiff’s claims for severance and notice pay on the grounds that “… a report was obtained from a tripartite expert committee in order to determine whether there was a violation of the obligation of loyalty, and the allegations attributed to the plaintiff in accordance with the report received were not appropriate…”, the conclusion reached is not in accordance with the scope of the file.
Article 25 (II) of the Labour Law No. 4857 lists the situations that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill, and it is explained that the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract in the presence of the specified situations and similar ones. In subparagraph (e) of the aforementioned paragraph, it is stated that employee behaviours that do not comply with the rules of honesty and loyalty, such as abusing the trust of the employer, theft, revealing the employer’s professional secrets, also give the employer the right to terminate the employment contract. As can be seen, the cases in the law are not limited in number, and in general, the words and behaviours of the employee that violate the loyalty obligation allow the employer to terminate the employee.
In the concrete dispute, the plaintiff employee claims in his petition that he took photocopies of the documents on which the termination was based in order to update the documents already in his possession. …, in his statement taken as a witness for the plaintiff, stated that “… These controlled documents are only given to responsible persons by the employer. Since I was one of those responsible persons, I also had these documents. The allegation that I and the claimant took these documents out without authorisation is not true.
It is true that these documents were copied by the plaintiff in the presence of everyone at the defendant workplace. The plaintiff should not have copied these documents without my permission. When I asked him, he said that he copied the documents in order to update them. As I said, these documents were in my room. However, since the plaintiff worked for me, he could access these documents by entering the room easily. In addition, all employees were verbally warned that these documents should not be copied….”.
Since it is understood from the information and documents in the file that the plaintiff copied the documents belonging to the employer by photocopying while working at the workplace, that the plaintiff witness Murat G. personally stated that he did not have the authority and permission to photocopy these documents, and that this action of the plaintiff was contrary to integrity and loyalty, the court should have decided to reject the plaintiff’s severance and notice pay claims, but the decision to accept it with contrary opinions required a reversal.
F) Conclusion:
It was decided unanimously on 19/12/2019 that the appealed decision will be reversed for the reasons written above, and the prepaid appeal fee will be returned to the relevant person upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.