Disregarding The Statements Of The Employee Whose Employment Contract Was Terminated For The Same Reason As The Plaintiff

Disregarding The Statements Of The Employee Whose Employment Contract Was Terminated For The Same Reason As The Plaintiff

CASSATION COURT 7th CIVIL CHAMBER E. 2015/13624, K. 2016/9164, T. 25.4.2016

• LABOR CLAIM CASE (According to the service record, the employee claims that their employment contract was terminated two days before starting to work at another workplace / Since the plaintiff’s witnesses are workers whose contracts ended for the same reason, their statements cannot be trusted – The plaintiff terminated their own employment contract without a valid reason / The claims for severance pay and notice pay should be rejected)
• CLAIM FOR SEVERANCE AND NOTICE PAY (According to the service record, the employee claims that their employment contract was terminated two days before starting to work at another workplace / Since the plaintiff’s witnesses are workers whose contracts ended for the same reason, their statements cannot be trusted – The plaintiff terminated their own employment contract without a valid reason / The case should be dismissed)
• DISREGARDING THE STATEMENTS OF WORKERS WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ENDED FOR THE SAME REASON AS THE PLAINTIFF (According to the service record, the employee claims that their employment contract was terminated two days before starting to work at another workplace / Since the plaintiff’s witnesses are workers whose contracts ended for the same reason, their statements cannot be trusted – The plaintiff terminated their own employment contract without a valid reason / The claims for severance pay and notice pay should be rejected)
• STARTING WORK AT ANOTHER WORKPLACE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE CLAIMED DATE OF TERMINATION (The plaintiff’s witnesses are workers whose contracts ended for the same reason, and thus their statements cannot be trusted – The plaintiff terminated their own employment contract without a valid reason / The claims for severance pay and notice pay should be rejected)

Summary:
The plaintiff claimed that their employment contract was unlawfully terminated by the employer and requested to collect severance and notice pay from the defendant.

The plaintiff argued that their contract was unlawfully terminated by the employer due to the elimination of the shift manager position, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff left the job to work at another company along with four other employees. According to the service record, the plaintiff started working at another company two days before the alleged termination date of their employment. Since the plaintiff’s witnesses are employees whose contracts ended for the same reason, their statements cannot be trusted. The defendant’s witnesses stated that the shift manager position was not eliminated. It was concluded that the plaintiff terminated their own contract without a valid reason, thus their claims for severance and notice pay should be rejected.

Case:
The case was brought before the court, and the decision was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer. The appeal was found to be timely. After reviewing the file and considering the legal and factual grounds of the case, the court rejected the defendant’s appeals except for one point.

Decision:

1. Based on the written documents and the factual evidence in the case, and considering there was no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the court rejects the appeal of the defendant except for the specific issue mentioned below.
2. The plaintiff claimed that their employment contract was unlawfully terminated by the employer, and requested severance and notice pay. The defendant requested the rejection of the case.

The court partially accepted the plaintiff’s case.

The dispute between the parties concerns who terminated the employment contract and whether the plaintiff is entitled to severance and notice pay. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that their employment contract was unlawfully terminated by the employer on 31.05.2013 due to the elimination of the shift manager position. However, the defendant argued that the plaintiff left the job to work at another company along with four other employees. Although the plaintiff claimed to have worked until 31.05.2013, the service record indicates that they started working at another company on 29.05.2013. Since the plaintiff’s witnesses are employees whose contracts ended for the same reason, their statements cannot be trusted. The defendant’s witnesses stated that the shift manager position was not eliminated. Based on the entire case file, it was concluded that the plaintiff terminated their own contract without a valid reason. Therefore, the claims for severance and notice pay should have been rejected. The court’s incorrect evaluation of this led to an erroneous acceptance of the claims, which required overturning the decision.

Conclusion:
The decision of the court in this case is overturned for the reasons mentioned above. Due to the reversal of the decision, the appeal related to the calculation of the plaintiff’s claims is not to be considered. The paid appeal fee will be refunded to the defendant upon request. The decision was made unanimously on 25.04.2016.