The Employee’s Failure To Resign And Being Forced To Sign A Release – Court Of Cassation Decisions
T.C. JUDICIARY
22nd Civil Chamber
Main: 2013/17991
Decision: 2014/28823
Date of Decision: 23.10.2014
LABOR RECEIVABLES LAWSUIT – THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT RESIGN – THE PLAINTIFF SIGNED THE DOCUMENT COMPULSORILY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT PENSION – THE EMPLOYER FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED FOR JUST CAUSE – UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: It is understood that the claimant did not resign and signed the document compulsorily in order to receive unemployment pension. Since the employer could not prove that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause, the plaintiff was entitled to severance pay and notice pay for failure to comply with the notice periods. The judgment was upheld by the appellate authority.
(4857 S. K. art. 17) (1475 S. K. art. 17)
Case and Decision: The plaintiff requested a decision for the payment of severance pay and notice pay receivables.
The court partially ruled the request.
Since the judgment was appealed by the lawyers of the parties within the time limit, the file was examined, the requirements were discussed and considered after listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge C. Koray Ünal for the case file:
Conclusion: According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the judgment is based, the legal grounds and especially the appreciation of the evidence, and especially since there is no inaccuracy in the appreciation of the evidence, it was unanimously decided on 23.10.2014 to reject all the appellate objections of both parties, and to confirm the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and the law, and to charge the following appeal expenses of 00,90 TL to the plaintiff and the remaining amount to the defendant.
T.C.
ANKARA LABOR COURT
ESAS NO: 2012/604
DECISION NO: 2013/71
CASE DATE: 03.10.2012
DECISION DATE 20.02.2013
At the end of the open trial of the debt case between the parties in our court;
THE NECESSITY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED:
The plaintiff briefly stated in his petition that he worked at the defendant Güneş Hasır Ltd. Şti. between 27.07.2006-26.02.2009, that his employment contract was terminated unfairly by the employer, that he signed a document stating that he received all his rights, but that he did not receive any receivables, that although his wage was 1.600 TL, his premiums were paid over the minimum wage, and requested and sued for the collection of 500 TL from the defendant for the time being, without prejudice to his rights regarding the surplus, and to decide to pay his premiums over the real wage.
The defendant Güneş Mesh Company’s attorney summarized in his reply petition; stating that the plaintiff left the job voluntarily, all his rights were paid, his wage was the minimum wage, the employees received wages according to their titles, he signed the payrolls without reservation, and requested a decision to dismiss the lawsuit.
The plaintiff filed the labor receivables and the service determination case together, the service determination case was decided to be separated, the trial was held in 2012/284 of our Court and a decision was made, and an additional lawsuit was filed with the file numbered 2012/261 of our court for the severance and notice pay receivables reserved by the plaintiff. Due to the fact that both lawsuits are interconnected with each other, a decision was made to consolidate them and they were included in our case file and the trial was continued through this case file.
From the documents examined and the entire file scope; it is understood that the plaintiff started working at the defendant’s workplace on 27.07.2006, worked until 26.02.2009, left the work on this date, by whom the termination was made and the amount of the last wage was the subject of dispute between the parties.
The plaintiff defended that his employment contract was terminated by the defendant; when he asked for unemployment benefits, he was made to sign a document stating that he had received all his rights. The defendant’s witnesses stated that the plaintiff had spoiled the quality of the food he cooked in order to quit his job, that the workers were uncomfortable with the food, that they complained, that the plaintiff was sent to the employer’s office by the foreman and that they heard that he left from there. It is clear that there was a problem between the claimant and the employer due to the poor quality of the food, and it is contrary to the ordinary course of life for the employer defendant, who was not satisfied with the work done by the claimant, to say that he insisted on employing the claimant. The document containing the statement of resignation and release signed by the plaintiff when he left the work is contradictory in itself, and the statement that the severance and notice indemnity was paid to the resigned employee, as well as the statements that the plaintiff was not asked to leave the work due to economic difficulties, the witness statements that he was not able to pay severance and notice indemnity, and the content of the release are contradictory, and this document is not credited for this reason. It is understood that the plaintiff did not resign and signed the document compulsorily in order to receive unemployment pension. Since the employer could not prove that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause, the plaintiff was entitled to severance pay and notice pay for failure to comply with the notice periods.
Regarding the determination of the plaintiff’s wage, the decision numbered 2012/284 main 2012/906 of our court, which was detached from this case, was finalized with the decision of the 21st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation with the decision numbered 2012/2344 main 2012/24527, and accordingly, it has been finalized that the plaintiff received the wage written in the payrolls. Accordingly, the lower of the gradual calculations made by the expert is taken as basis.
For the reasons explained above, it is necessary to decide to accept the lawsuit and partially accept the consolidated lawsuit.
JUDGMENT: With the acceptance of the lawsuit and partial acceptance of the case numbered 2012/261 of Ankara 16th Labor Court,
1- 1.749,83 TL. net severance pay to be taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff together with the highest bank deposit interest applied to deposits by banks as of 26.02.2009, the date of termination of the contract,
2- 803,49 TL. 250 TL of the net notice compensation to be paid to the plaintiff together with the legal interest to be accrued as of 27.03.2009, the date of the lawsuit, and the remaining part as of 08.05.2012, the date of the additional lawsuit,
3- To dismiss the excessive claims in the additional lawsuit,
4- To deduct the total 138,25 TL (21,15+117,10=138,25 TL) fee taken in advance from the 174,42 TL. relative decision and judgment fee that should be taken according to the fees tariff from the amount judged in this case and in the combined case, and to take the missing 36,17 TL. from the defendant and register it to the treasury,
5- The attorney fee of 440 TL calculated in favor of the plaintiff who represented himself by proxy shall be taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, and the attorney fee of 639,79 TL calculated in favor of the defendant due to the rejection shall be taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant,
6- In this case, 53,05 TL judicial expenses and 21,15 TL advance fee incurred by the plaintiff and shown in the breakdown below should be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, 14,91 TL of the 46,05 TL expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the combined case according to the acceptance and rejection rate and 117,10 TL advance fee should be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, the remaining 72 TL from the 100 TL. After deducting the expenses to be incurred during the period until the finalization of the decision from the remaining 72 TL from the advance on expenses deposited by the plaintiff, the decision that the parties have the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation within 8 days was clearly read and duly pronounced against the faces of the attorneys of the parties. 20/02/2013