The Witness’s Direct Interest In The Plaintiff – Supreme Court Decision
T.C.
COURT OF APPEALS
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
2015/20572
2018/1190
January 24, 2018
* LABOR CLAIMS (It was determined that the plaintiff and the witness testified for each other, and the calculations were based on the witness statements/Since the individuals worked together at the same workplace and claimed rights for the same reason, they were directly in a conflict of interest, and therefore their witness statements could not be relied upon – Since no other evidence was presented, the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal allowance differences, and the severance pay associated with these claims must be rejected)
* Employees working at the same workplace testifying for each other (Since they are individuals claiming rights for the same reason and are directly in a conflict of interest, their testimony cannot be relied upon) – Since no other evidence was presented, the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal allowance differences, and the severance pay associated with these claims shall be rejected)
* THE WITNESS IS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE PLAINTIFF BY A COMMON INTEREST (Since the witnesses are individuals who worked together at the same workplace and are claiming rights for the same reason, their testimony cannot be relied upon due to their direct connection by a common interest) – Since no other evidence was presented, the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal allowance differences, and the severance pay associated with these claims must be rejected)
6100/m.255
SUMMARY: The plaintiff claims to have worked as a driver and alleges that a notice of default was sent to the defendant due to the non-payment of the plaintiff’s wages, seeking the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, weekly holiday pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, and remaining meal allowance from the defendant. The plaintiff has proven the claim that the overtime, national holiday, and general holiday wages were not paid, based on the grounds of just cause for termination, through witness testimony. In the case files reviewed on the same day, it was understood that the plaintiffs testified for each other and that the calculations were based on the witness statements. The plaintiffs are individuals who worked together at the same workplace and are claiming rights for the same reason, and thus have a direct common interest. For this reason, their witness statements cannot be relied upon. No other evidence was presented. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal allowance differences, and the severance pay associated with these claims must be rejected.
CASE: The plaintiff requested a decision ordering the payment of severance pay, overtime pay, weekly holiday pay, annual leave pay, remaining meal allowance, and national holiday and general holiday pay.
The local court partially accepted the case.
Although the defendant’s attorney appealed the decision within the appeal period, the court decided to reject the request for a hearing based on Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to conduct the review based on the documents. The report prepared by the reviewing judge was submitted, the file was reviewed, and the necessary discussions and considerations were made:
DECISION: A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff claims to have worked as a driver and alleges that a notice of default was sent to the defendant due to the non-payment of the plaintiff’s wages, seeking the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, weekend pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, and remaining meal allowances from the defendant.
B-) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to absenteeism and requested the dismissal of the case.
C-) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision and the Trial Process:
The court decided to partially accept the case based on the evidence gathered and the expert report.
D-) Appeal:
The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
E-) Rationale:
The plaintiff claimed that he had rightfully terminated the employment contract due to unpaid wages and sought overtime pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, weekly leave, meal allowance, and severance pay based on these.
The defendant employer raised the defense of absence.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s claims for overtime, national holiday, and general holiday wages, as well as severance pay, but rejected the claims for weekly holiday and annual paid leave.
The plaintiff proved the claim that the overtime, national holiday, and general holiday wages were not paid, as stated in the justified termination, with a witness. In the case files reviewed on the same day, it was understood that the plaintiffs had testified for each other (2015/4898 E., 2015/34583 E., 36420 E.) and that the calculations were based on the witness statements.
The plaintiffs are individuals who worked together at the same workplace and are claiming rights for the same reason, and they are directly in a community of interest. For this reason, their witness statements cannot be relied upon. No other evidence has been presented. Therefore, the court’s decision to reject the plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal allowance differences, and the severance pay associated with these claims, while failing to provide a written decision, is erroneous and warrants reversal.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision is reversed for the reasons stated above. If requested, the advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the relevant party. This decision was made unanimously on January 24, 2018.