If An Employee Is Assigned To Perform Work Outside Their Job Description, They May Request Compensation For It.
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
9th CIVIL CHAMBER
CASE NO: 2014/811
DECISION NO: 2015/14090
DATE OF DECISION: 04/14/2015
>IF AN EMPLOYEE IS MADE TO PERFORM WORK OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THEIR JOB, THEY MAY SEPARATELY DEMAND PAYMENT FOR SUCH WORK FROM THE EMPLOYER.
The plaintiff requested a decision ordering the payment of unpaid wages and outstanding wages for the remaining period. The local court decided to partially accept the case. As the parties appealed through their lawyers within the judgment period, the case file was examined after hearing the report prepared by the Investigating Judge, and the necessary discussions and considerations were made:
The plaintiff claimed that he worked as an oiler under the Maritime Labor Law within the defendant employer’s organization, that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer, and requested unpaid wages and remaining period wages.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause and requested that the case be dismissed.
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the defendant was justified in terminating the employment contract and that the plaintiff was not entitled to wages for the remaining period of employment. The court partially accepted the claim on the grounds that the plaintiff was owed unpaid wages for the last month of employment.
Both parties appealed the decision.
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeal is unfounded, except for the scope of the following clause.
2-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the fixed-term employment contract was terminated by the employer for just cause before its term expired.
Article 7 of the Maritime Labor Law No. 854 mentions three types of contracts to be made with seafarers. Accordingly, the employment contract to be made with a seafarer may be for a fixed term, for a voyage, or for an indefinite period.
In the present case, the employment contract dated June 24, 2008, between the parties was concluded for a period of 9 months. The plaintiff’s job was specified as oiler. However, the plaintiff was instructed to repair a hole in the ship’s swage tank with welding and to clean the tank. When the plaintiff requested additional pay from the employer for this work, the employer stated that this payment would not be made. Upon this, in a petition dated November 12, 2008, addressed to the employer, the employee stated that he was entitled to this pay and that it was not right for the employer to threaten to dismiss him because he demanded this right. The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the disciplinary committee on November 12, 2008, based on this petition. The disciplinary committee’s decision stated that the plaintiff caused unrest on the ship and used foul language, and although the employer presented two reports to prove this, they could not prove the accuracy of the content of these reports. The employer is justified in demanding payment of wages as a valid reason for termination. The court should re-evaluate the expert report in the file and accept the plaintiff’s claim for wages for the remaining period.
CONCLUSION: The appealed decision was REVERSED for the reasons stated above, and it was unanimously decided on 04/14/2015 that the advance appeal fee would be refunded to the relevant party upon request.