Enforcement Proceedings Against Workers’ Claims On A Gross Basis And Complaints
Workers’ claims are regulated by our Labor Law No. 4857 and consist of monetary values such as wages and compensation in return for the worker’s labor and work.
The issue of employee rights and claims arises when employees leave or are dismissed from their workplaces. Often, employers and employees disagree on this matter, and employee rights and claims are brought before the courts through litigation.
In labor lawsuits, claims ruled in favor of the employee are often ruled on gross, and it is decided that deductions will be taken into account during the enforcement phase. In enforcement proceedings, it should first be examined whether the court ruled on the claims gross. If the employee’s claims were ruled on gross, the necessary deductions should be made, the claims should be converted to net, and enforcement should be pursued based on these amounts.
Enforcing gross employee claims without converting them to net amounts constitutes a violation of the judgment and is subject to complaint. Since the complaint in question constitutes a violation of the judgment in enforcement proceedings, it relates to public order and can be litigated through complaint in the enforcement court without limitation.
The relevant Supreme Court decision is as follows:
SUPREME COURT OF TURKEY 8TH CIVIL CHAMBER E. 2015/17339 K. 2015/20274 T. 12.11.2015
SUMMARY: The case concerns a request for cancellation of enforcement. In an enforcement proceeding based on a judgment, the complaint that the items of debt were requested gross and that legal deductions were not made constitutes a violation of the judgment. Since such complaints relate to public order, they may be brought before the Enforcement Court without limitation. In this case, the Court should have made a decision based on the outcome of an expert examination, if necessary, and it was incorrect to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of the time limit.
CASE: Upon the plaintiff’s request for an appeal review of the Court decision dated and numbered above within the time limit, the file related to this case was sent from the local court to the Chamber. After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge for the case file and reading and examining all the documents in the file, the matter was discussed and considered:
DECISION: The debtor’s representative, based on the judgment of the Kırşehir 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated 20.01.2015 and numbered 2013/216, 2015/49 Decision, and initiated enforcement proceedings against his client with the Kırşehir Enforcement Directorate under Case No. 2015/1229, requesting that the proceedings be canceled on the grounds that the items of debt were requested gross and that legal deductions were not made.
The court ruled that the complaint was rejected on the grounds that the 7-day complaint period had passed since the service of the enforcement order, and the ruling was appealed by the debtor’s attorney.
In an enforcement proceeding based on a judgment, complaints that the receivables were claimed gross and that statutory deductions were not made constitute a violation of the judgment and, as such complaints relate to public order, they may be brought before the Enforcement Court without limitation as to time. (HGK Decision dated 21.06.2000, No. 2000/12-1002)
In this case, the Court should make a decision based on the outcome of an expert examination, if necessary, and it is not correct to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of time limits.
CONCLUSION: The debtor’s attorney’s appeal is accepted, and the Court’s decision is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, pursuant to Articles 366 and 6100 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, as referred to in the Transitional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. The parties are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 388/4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (HMK Art. 297/ ç) and Article 366/3 of the IIK, a request for correction of the decision may be made within 10 days of the notification of the Supreme Court Chamber’s decision, and the advance fee of TL 27.70 shall be refunded to the plaintiff upon request, was unanimously decided on 12.11.2015.”