Claim For The Collection Of Wages – Termination Of The Employment Contract
Republic of Turkey
COURT OF CASSATION
9th CIVIL CHAMBER
Case No. 2017/6457
Decision No. 2018/8931
Date: April 17, 2018
* Claim for Collection of Wages (The dispute concerns whether the employment contract between the parties was lawfully terminated by the defendant employer – It was determined, even from the defendant’s witness statements, that the product price paid by the customer was received not by the plaintiff but by an employee working at the same cash register, who was reported as a witness but was not heard – The defendant employer failed to provide concrete evidence of the valid grounds for termination; the rejection of the plaintiff’s claims for seniority and notice pay was erroneous)
* TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (The Plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the grounds that the product price, which was sold in U.S. dollars, was altered and the resulting difference remained in the Plaintiff’s possession) – It was understood from the defendant’s witness statements that the product price paid by the customer was not received by the plaintiff but by the employee who made the sale at the same register—despite being identified as a witness, this employee was not heard—and that the defendant employer failed to provide concrete evidence of a valid ground for termination)
* DUTY OF EQUITABLE TREATMENT (It was established that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale or the receipt issued, and that the cashier was dismissed due to the same incident but rehired the next day) – It was not concretely proven that the plaintiff tampered with records or appropriated the difference in product sales; furthermore, the employer acted in violation of the duty of equal treatment by rehiring another employee who had collected the full amount from the customer)
4857/Art. 25
SUMMARY: The case concerns a claim for the collection of wages.
The dispute centers on whether the employment contract between the parties was lawfully terminated by the defendant employer.
The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the grounds that the product price, which was sold in dollars and provided to the customer for 2,300 dollars, was altered to 2,000 dollars, and the difference remained in the plaintiff’s possession. However, even from the defendant’s witness statements, it is understood that the product price of 2,300 dollars paid by the customer was not received by the plaintiff but by an employee named T., who was working at the same cash register and was reported as a witness but not heard; that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale or the receipt issued; that cashier T. was dismissed due to the same incident; and that he was rehired the next day. Not only has it not been concretely proven that the plaintiff tampered with records or appropriated the difference in the product sale, but it is also evident that the employer acted in violation of the duty of equal treatment by rehiring the other employee, T., who had actually received the full payment from the customer.
The defendant employer has failed to provide concrete evidence of just cause for termination, and the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims for seniority and notice pay is unjustified.
CASE: The plaintiff requested a ruling ordering the payment of seniority compensation, notice compensation, compensation for bad faith, moral damages, as well as overtime pay, national holiday pay, and general holiday pay.
The local court ruled to partially grant the claim.
Since the case was appealed by the parties’ attorneys within the appeal period, the case file was reviewed after hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge, and the matter was thoroughly discussed and considered:
DECISION: A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claims:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff began working as a cashier at the defendant’s workplace in the district of Kemer on June 6, 2012, and later worked as an insured employee at the defendant’s workplace in Side-Manavgat, receiving a net monthly salary of 1,100.00 TL. The plaintiff worked six days a week from 1:00 PM to 2:00 AM, including religious and public holidays, and took one day off per week; that overtime wages were not paid; and that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer. The plaintiff seeks severance pay based on seniority, wages for national holidays and general holidays, overtime pay, compensation for bad faith, and compensatory damages.
B-) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s attorney argued that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was justified and in accordance with procedure and law; that the amount shown on the pay stub was the plaintiff’s salary; that the work performed on general holidays, religious holidays, and official holidays was reflected on the pay stub and paid to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff did not work overtime, and thus requested the dismissal of the case.
C-) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was justified; that the plaintiff had no right to claim moral damages or damages for bad faith due to the just cause of termination; that the plaintiff failed to prove working on national holidays and general holidays; and that the plaintiff’s overtime work was proven by witness statements, thereby partially granting the claim.
D-) Appeal:
Both parties appealed the decision.
E-) Rationale:
1-) Based on the documents in the file and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals in their entirety, and the plaintiff’s appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph, are unfounded.
2-) The issue in dispute is whether the employment contract between the parties was lawfully terminated by the defendant employer.
In this specific case, the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the grounds that the price of a product sold in U.S. dollars—which was provided to the customer for 2,300 dollars—was altered to 2,000 dollars, and the difference remained in the plaintiff’s possession. However, even according to the defendant’s witnesses, the product price of $2,300 paid by the customer was not received by the plaintiff but by T., who was working at the same register and was reported as a witness but not heard, It is understood that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale or the receipt issued, that cashier T. was dismissed due to the same incident, but was rehired the following day. Not only has it not been concretely proven that the plaintiff tampered with records and appropriated the difference in the product sale, but it is also evident that the employer acted in violation of the duty of equal treatment by rehiring the other employee, T., who had actually received the full amount from the customer.
The defendant employer has failed to provide concrete evidence of a valid ground for termination. For these reasons, the rejection of the plaintiff’s claims for seniority and notice pay instead of their acceptance was erroneous and warrants reversal.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision is hereby REVERSED for the reasons stated above; the advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the relevant party upon request; this decision was rendered unanimously on April 17, 2018.