Interest On Labor Claims – Date Of Employer’s Default Court Of Cassation Decisions
T.C. JUDICIARY
9th Civil Chamber
Main: 2012/16304
Decision: 2014/20516
Date of Decision: 19.06.2014
LABOR RECEIVABLES LAWSUIT – THE NECESSITY TO DECIDE ON LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT OF THE EMPLOYER OR THE DATE OF THE LAWSUIT – APPLYING THE HIGHEST DEPOSIT INTEREST WHILE LEGAL INTEREST SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE WAGE RECEIVABLE – REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: There is no provision in the law stating that the highest interest rate applied to deposits by banks shall be awarded for labor receivables. Legal interest should be decided from the date of default of the employer or the date of the lawsuit. For this reason, while the court should apply legal interest to the wage claim, the application of the highest deposit interest is also a separate reason for reversal.
(6100 S. Code Art. 27, 107)
Case: The plaintiff requested a decision for the payment of severance pay, notice pay, wage receivable, general holiday pay and annual leave pay receivables.
The local court partially ruled the request.
Since the judgment was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the time limit, the file was examined, the file was examined, the necessity was discussed and considered after listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge M. T. for the case file:
Decision A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request: The plaintiff, claiming that he worked as a cameraman in the defendant company and his employment contract was terminated without just cause, requested the collection of severance, notice pay, wages, general holiday and annual leave pay receivables from the defendant.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response: The defendant defended that the employment contract was terminated for just cause because the plaintiff did not come to work without permission and requested the rejection of the lawsuit.
C) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
The court decided to partially accept the lawsuit on the grounds that the employment contract was terminated verbally by the employer upon a dispute with the editor-in-chief, and the starting date of the interest for the increased portions was taken as the date of the lawsuit, considering that the lawsuit is an indefinite receivable lawsuit regulated under Article 107 of the CCP.
D) Appeal: The defendant appealed the decision.
E) Grounds: 1-According to the writings in the case, the evidence collected and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s objections to the appeal other than those covered by the following subparagraphs are not relevant.
2-The dispute between the parties centers on whether the defendant’s right to be heard has been violated, whether the calculation of the annual leave pay has been made correctly, whether the interest rate applied and the start of interest is correct.
In the concrete case, the defendant requested the hearing of his witnesses by providing a list of witnesses, and since the defendant made the request after the expert report, the request was granted considering the stage of the file. The rejection of the defendant’s request for the hearing of witnesses on illegal grounds is a violation of the right to be heard in accordance with Article 27 of the CCP and the judgment should be reversed for this reason.
3-It is not correct that the plaintiff’s increase of his claims with the amendment is erroneously characterized as an indefinite receivable case pursuant to Article 107 of the CCP, and interest should be charged on the labor receivables from the date of the lawsuit and the amendment, while interest should be charged from the date of the lawsuit.
4-There is no provision in the Law No. 5953 on the Regulation of the Relations between the Employees and Employees in the Press Profession regarding the press employees that the annual leave pay will be calculated from the last wage. For this reason, it is erroneous to calculate the plaintiff’s annual leave wage according to the wage he received in the years he deserved the leave, while it should be calculated as written.
5-There is no provision in the Law No. 5953 stating that the highest interest rate applied to deposits by banks will be awarded for labor receivables. Legal interest should be decided from the date of default of the employer or the date of the lawsuit. For this reason, while the court should apply legal interest to the wage receivable, the application of the highest deposit interest is a separate reason for reversal.
F) Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 19.06.2014 that the appealed decision shall be reversed for the reasons written above and the prepaid appeal fee shall be refunded to the relevant party upon request. (¤¤)
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program