The Testimony Of Persons Suing Their Employer Is Valid
Republic of Turkey
COURT OF CASSATION
7th CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2014/15057
DECISION NO: 2014/19544
DATE OF DECISION: 27.10.2014
>THE TESTIMONY OF PERSONS WHO HAVE FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE EMPLOYER IS VALID.
CASE: The appeal of the judgment rendered in the case between the parties was requested by the attorneys of the plaintiff and defendant Ç. Çimento San. ve Tic. A.Ş. It was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit. The file was reviewed, and the necessary deliberations were made.
DECISION: 1-) Based on the documents in the file, the legal and judicial grounds for the ruling adopted by our Chamber, the material evidence on which it is based, and in particular the fact that no inaccuracy was found in the assessment of this evidence, the defendant Ç. Çimento San. ve Tic. A.Ş.’s appeal objections, except for those covered by the following clause, are rejected.
2-) The plaintiff, who worked as a mixer operator at the defendant’s workplace, claimed that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer and requested the payment of seniority and notice compensation, as well as certain labor claims.
The defendant Ç. Çimento San. Ve Tic. A.Ş. argued that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the other defendant company, that it paid all receivables incumbent upon it as the contracting authority, that no claim could be brought against it, and that the other defendant O. Hazır Beton Nak. İnş. Pet. Ür. Hayv. Tur. Oto. San. ve Tic. A.Ş. argued that the employment contract was terminated for just cause due to the completion of the tender and that there were no outstanding claims, requesting that the lawsuit be dismissed.
The court partially accepted the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the plaintiff for just cause.
There is a dispute between the parties as to who terminated the employment contract and whether it was terminated for just cause.
In this specific case, the plaintiff claimed severance pay, notice pay, and wages owed on the grounds that the employment contract was terminated by the defendant without just cause and that wages were not paid. The expert who prepared the report in the file, based on a written petition addressed to the defendant Ç. Çimento San. ve Tic. Anonim Şirketi, concluded that the plaintiff had terminated the employment contract for just cause on January 15, 2013, due to non-payment of wages, and that although the plaintiff was entitled to severance pay, he could not claim notice pay. The Court, relying on this report, rejected the claim for notice pay. However, this decision is erroneous.
In similar cases where petitions identical to the plaintiff’s termination statement submitted to the file were presented, even though the plaintiff submitted a resignation letter dated 15/01/2013, it was determined that the resignation letter did not reflect the employee’s true intention and that the employee wrote the resignation letter after the employer stated that the wages owed would be paid. Considering the witness statements of the plaintiff and the defendant and the written response of Ç. A.Ş., it is understood that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant O. Ltd. Şti ended on 15/01/2013, and that the employee had no legal interest in resigning at the time the contract between the defendants ended. It is understood from the series of files opened in our court that the employees who were collectively dismissed wrote the same resignation letter in their own handwriting, and their claims for seniority and notice compensation were accepted on the grounds that their employment contracts were terminated by the employer unjustly and without notice. These decisions and the grounds for termination were also approved by our Chamber and became final. In light of this situation, since it is understood that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the defendant O. Hazır Beton Nak. İnş. Pet. Ür. Hayv. Tur. Oto. San. ve Tic. A.Ş. without just cause, the rejection of the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation is erroneous and constitutes grounds for reversal.
3-) Regarding the plaintiff’s claims for wages, the court found that the witnesses Y. D. and Y. A. called by the plaintiff had ongoing cases before the court on the same subject, that the plaintiff and witnesses had testified against each other regarding overtime, and that they were in conflict with the defendant. Therefore, their testimony could not be relied upon. Therefore, based on the defendant’s witness statements, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s claims on the grounds that there was no overtime work, weekend work, or work on public holidays. The plaintiff and the witnesses are individuals who worked at the same workplace, performed the same job, had the same working conditions, and suffered the same grievances. Therefore, it is very natural that they filed lawsuits with the same claims. In fact, all workers employed in the HES project in question, apart from these witnesses, have filed lawsuits with the same claims. This situation proves that they experienced the same difficulties, not that their testimonies are invalid. If these testimonies are not considered credible, the plaintiff has no chance of finding witnesses who are familiar with the workplace conditions. According to the general principles of labor law, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff’s wages have been paid. Given that it is established in the case file that the plaintiff worked overtime, worked on national holidays and general holidays other than religious holidays, and worked on weekends, but the defendant did not pay him for this, the plaintiff’s claim should be accepted in terms of wage claims, as in similar cases, and its rejection is erroneous and grounds for reversal.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals challenging these aspects should be accepted, and the decision should be overturned.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision is overturned for the reasons stated above. The advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the plaintiff upon request, and the appeal fee stated below shall be charged to the defendant. This decision was made unanimously on October 27, 2014.