Including Statements Unrelated To The Case File In The Reasoning For The Decision Requires Reversal.
Summary:
It is not alleged in the file that the plaintiff accessed the computer containing information about the institution doctor’s illness without permission. that such an incident was not used as grounds for termination, that it was erroneous to include statements unrelated to the case in the grounds for the decision, that it was not possible to review the decision, that the decision was therefore without grounds, and that the decision should be overturned solely on this basis in order to examine and discuss the parties’ claims and defenses and the action subject to termination.
T.C.
Court of Cassation
9th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2014/24361
Decision No: 2014/37164
Date: 4.12.2014
COURT: ISTANBUL ANADOLU 15TH LABOR COURT
DATE: 10/06/2014
NUMBER: 2013/1703-2014/341
CASE: The plaintiff requested a decision on the invalidity of the termination and reinstatement to work.
The local court dismissed the case.
Although the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit, the request for a hearing was rejected due to the nature of the case, and it was decided that the review would be conducted based on the documents. After hearing the report prepared by the Review Judge for the case file and reviewing the file, the necessary discussions and deliberations were made:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s workplace as the Occupational Health and Safety Manager, that there was no behavior on his part that could cause the termination of his employment contract for just or valid reasons, that he did not receive any negative reports or warnings during his period of employment, that the workplace physician, who failed to respond to the plaintiff’s requests and calls for cooperation to remedy legal deficiencies and inadequacies and refused to cooperate, did not provide any information about the work carried out in the health unit and did not keep any records, making it impossible to clearly determine whether the alleged work was in compliance with the law and regulations, Therefore, it was decided to request a defense from the workplace physician, and on November 24, 2012, a draft of the defense letter to be requested from the defendant company’s human resources manager and workplace physician was shared. Following all these findings, the workplace physician complained about the plaintiff with a series of slanderous allegations, claiming that the plaintiff had accessed his personal health files. A disciplinary investigation was opened against the plaintiff due to the inspection he conducted. In its termination notice, the defendant company claimed that the inspection conducted in the Occupational Health and Safety unit constituted unauthorized access to personal health files and was therefore contrary to the law and ethical principles. However, the plaintiff stated that these allegations were completely false and contrary to the law, and that an examination of both the old OSH regulations under Labor Law No. 4857 and the OSH regulations under Law No. 6331 would clearly show that the plaintiff was justified and had acted in accordance with the law and regulations, and requested reinstatement.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant’s representative stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for valid reasons based on conduct, with all rights paid, by a disciplinary committee decision and a written termination notice dated March 29, 2013, and that the employer had assigned an occupational safety specialist, an occupational physician, and other health personnel among its employees to provide occupational health and safety services, subjecting employees to health surveillance, taking into account the health and safety risks they would be exposed to at the workplace. The employer is obligated to keep the health information confidential in order to protect the privacy and reputation of the employee who undergoes a health examination.
, and that it was determined that the plaintiff had examined files and documents containing personal information belonging to employees, which were under the responsibility of the workplace physician, without the permission of the persons concerned. Upon examination of the plaintiff’s files and documents, the workplace nurse Kamuran Bayraktar, who was on duty, stated that “the plaintiff came at a time when the workplace physician was not present and examined the files and documents, which also contained private information about individuals.” that reviewing such documents at the workplace is only possible in the presence of the relevant person and with the support of the company’s audit and legal departments, that the aforementioned documents and files contain individuals’ private information and must be kept confidential by the employer, otherwise the trust of the employees in the employer will be lost, and that the employer is obliged to keep the health information of employees confidential, The plaintiff, acting contrary to company procedures and rules when no one else was present, examined documents and files belonging to employees that were of a “patient-doctor confidentiality” nature, took photographs of them, and violated patient privacy rights. Considering the plaintiff’s actions and defense, the relationship between the plaintiff and the workplace physician was negative. the plaintiff attempted to expose the workplace physician’s shortcomings himself rather than sharing them with the employer, thereby weakening the coordination between the parties in relation to the job, and even eliminating it with the incident in question, whereas it is very important for the plaintiff and the workplace physician to work together in a coordinated manner for the performance of the job, that as a result of the plaintiff’s actions, the relationship of trust between the plaintiff and the employer had been destroyed and it had become impossible to continue the employment relationship, and that the employment contract had been terminated for valid reasons following the evaluation of the complaint against the plaintiff by the disciplinary committee, and requested that the case be dismissed.
C) Summary of the Local Court’s Decision:
The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was justified.
D) Appeal:
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision.
E) Reasoning:
In this specific case, the court’s reasoning in its decision states, “….. it was concluded that the termination was justified and the claim should be dismissed, as it was seen that the plaintiff undermined the institution’s trust in him by accessing the institution doctor’s computer without permission to obtain information about the institution doctor’s illness, which only the institution doctor could access, and was therefore dismissed.” However, the file does not allege that the plaintiff accessed the computer containing the institution doctor’s information about the illness without permission, that such an incident was not used as grounds for termination, that it was erroneous to include statements unrelated to the case file in the grounds for the decision, that it was not possible to review the decision, and that the decision was therefore unfounded. For this reason alone, the decision must be overturned so that the parties’ claims and defenses and the act subject to termination can be examined and discussed before a decision is made.
F) Conclusion:
The appealed decision was REVERSED for the reasons stated above. Considering the grounds for reversal, there is no need to examine other appeals at this stage. The appeal fee collected in advance shall be refunded to the relevant party upon request. This decision was made unanimously on December 4, 2014.