It Is Not Possible For The Person Working As A Senior Manager To Request Overtime Work Wage
9th Civil Chamber 2020/5182 E. , 2021/3314 K.
“Case Law Text”
REGIONAL COURT OF JURISDICTION : … 7th Civil Chamber
CASE TYPE : CLAIM
COURT OF FIRST INJURY : … West 2nd Labour Court
The appeal of the decision given as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the attorneys of the parties, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in due time. After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined and the necessity was discussed and considered:
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
1-In terms of the plaintiff’s appeal;
Final decisions regarding movable property and receivable cases, the amount and value of which do not exceed the finality limit of appeal, cannot be appealed pursuant to Article 362 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. The limit of certainty is related to public order.
In the concrete dispute, the Court of First Instance partially accepted the case and ruled for labour receivables amounting to 86.857,49 TL in total, and due to the fact that the attorneys of the parties applied for the appeal remedy, the Regional Court of Appeal decided to reject the defendant’s appeal on the merits, and the decision was appealed by the parties.
In the face of these explanations, it should be noted that the finality limit in terms of the amount at the date of the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal is 72.070,00 TL, the plaintiff increased the case value with the amendment petition and the amount requested in total is 105.077,76 TL, accordingly, the total rejected claim of the plaintiff is 18.220,27 TL, since the amount subject to appeal is within the scope of the finality limit, the appeal request of the plaintiff’s attorney is rejected in accordance with Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100,
2-For the defendant’s appeal;
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence gathered and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appellate objections other than those covered by the following paragraph are not relevant.
1-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff worked overtime or not.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff, who worked at the defendant bank between 05.11.1996-04.05.2016, worked as the branch manager of Akbank … Organised Industrial Zone between 16.04.2015-04.05.2016. Although the expert report, which was taken as a basis for the judgement by the Court of First Instance, calculated the claimant’s overtime wage according to the witness statements, according to the content of the file, since the claimant worked as the branch manager of Akbank … Organised Industrial Zone, it is understood that the claimant worked as the highest level manager in the place where he was located, and that he was in a position to determine the working order in accordance with his jurisdiction, it should be decided to reject the claim for overtime wages for the period between 16.04.2015-04.05.2016, when he worked as a branch manager, but the decision given otherwise was erroneous and required reversal.
Conclusion:
It was decided unanimously on 03/02/2021 that the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal is reversed and annulled for the reasons written above, the file is sent to the Court of First Instance that made the decision, a copy of the reversal decision is sent to the Regional Court of Appeal that made the decision, and the prepaid appeal decision fee is returned to the relevant parties upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.