Using Expressions Like “Idiot, Moron” To A Coworker – Justifiable Termination Supreme Court Decision
Summary:
Although the court ruled to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was not responsible for the incident, considering the defendant’s witness statements and the written statements of other employees whose statements were taken during the workplace investigation, it is clear that the plaintiff used the words “retarded, moron” for another employee.
T.C.
Court of Cassation
9th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2014/22068
Decision No: 2014/37710
Date:
CASE: The plaintiff requested a decision on the invalidity of the termination and reinstatement to work.
The local court ruled on the request.
The case was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the ruling period. After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge for the case file, the file was examined, and the necessary discussions and deliberations were made:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff claimed that on 07/17/2013, he was subjected to profanity and insults by a coworker, and that after reporting these insults to his superiors, an investigation was launched, resulting in the plaintiff being dismissed from his job on 07/29/2013 on the grounds that he “provoked his coworker by insulting him.” However, the plaintiff argued that this reason was invalid and did not reflect the truth. The plaintiff claims that his employment contract was terminated unjustly and unlawfully and requests that the termination be declared invalid, that he be reinstated, and that compensation and wages be awarded accordingly.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant claims that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause in accordance with Article 25/II-d, and that the plaintiff, who worked as the overseas tours manager at the company, … on 17/07/2013, and that an investigation was launched following the complaint. The defendant argued that, according to witness statements, it was determined that the plaintiff provoked his colleague by insulting him and caused the fight, and requested that the case be dismissed.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
According to the statements of the witnesses heard by the court, based on an email sent by the head of overseas tours to the plaintiff, the plaintiff informed the quality manager that he wanted to reply to this email. At that moment, the head of overseas tours came out of his office and said, “You’re talking about me, I’ll shove those words up your ass.” Both employees were dismissed due to this argument. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, reasoning that it was impossible for the overseas tours manager to have heard the plaintiff based on the circumstances of the incident and that the plaintiff was not the cause of the incident.
D) Appeal:
The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
E) Reasoning:
Although the court decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the cause of the incident, considering the defendant’s witness statements and the written statements of other employees whose statements were taken during the workplace investigation, it is clear that the plaintiff used the words “idiot, moron” for another employee.
In this case, these words, understood to have been directed by the plaintiff at another employee working at the workplace, constitute harassment, and since it is understood that the employer’s termination is based on just cause under Article 25/2-d of Law No. 4857, it is erroneous to accept the case instead of dismissing it.
In accordance with Article 20/3 of Labor Law No. 4857, our Chamber has decided as follows.
RULING: Based on the above reasons;
1. The court’s decision is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
2. The case is DISMISSED.
3. Since the fee was paid in advance, there is no need to collect it again.
4. The litigation costs incurred by the plaintiff are left as they are, and the litigation costs of 136.00 TL incurred by the defendant are collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant.
5. The attorney’s fee of 1,500 TL, according to the tariff in effect on the date of the decision, shall be collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant,
6. The advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the defendant upon request,
The decision was made unanimously on 09.12.2014.