9th Supreme Court. In the decision of the Law Department dated E 2015/711b 2016/9142 K 12.04.2016;
CASE: Plaintiff-defendant against plaintiff, payee, overtime pay, public holiday, weekend pay, annual leave
the plaintiff against the defendant, who will receive the fee, has requested that it be decided that the notice compensation will be paid.
The local court decided on the partial acceptance of the original case and the acceptance of the counter-case.
Having been appealed by the plaintiff-defendant’s lawyer against the plaintiff during the sentencing period, for the case file
After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge, the file was examined, the necessary topics were discussed
it was thought:
A) Summary of the Claimant-Versus-Defendant Request:
Plaintiff-the defendant, on 10/04/2011, started working as a mixer operator and shipping officer
he started, worked until 10/04/2013, his last net fee was 2,300.00 TL, the plaintiff
he works asar for 45 hours a week, but overtime wages are not paid, on public holidays
he claimed that he was not paid for his work, that his annual leave was not used, that his fee was not paid
by driving, you will receive overtime pay, week break pay, annual leave pay and public holiday pay
he has.
B) Summary of the Respondent-Versus-Plaintiff Response:
Defendant-counter-plaintiff claims that the plaintiff worked from 10/04/2011 to 27/03/2013, resigning and decommissioning
that he worked as a dispatcher of a concrete batching plant until the date of his departure, the plaintiff was paid a minimum wage
that he works, that all the plaintiff’s wages are paid, that the defendant is forced to work overtime at work
that the claimant has used his annual leave for the period of work, that it has been made and that the compensation has been paid,
the defendant works 6 days a week at his workplace, the plaintiff does not have a week break fee, the national holiday
that their claims about their work are not based on, that they are in a clearing offset,
since the plaintiff has terminated his employment without complying with the notice measures, the plaintiff must pay notice compensation
arguing that it was necessary, he demanded that the case be dismissed and the notice compensation be accepted.
C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court and the Trial Process: Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, in terms of the actual case: the plaintiff, who is on the burden of proving that overtime and weekend work has been performed, fulfills this obligation of the scot
the fact that the plaintiff’s witnesses who have been heard cannot bring their cases against the defendant is a witness in this respect
it is not possible to give credit to their statements, the phenomenon of overwork and weekend work
it is understood that the plaintiff cannot provide any other evidence that will be useful to prove that his claims will receive this item
refusal, as can be understood from the statements of the plaintiff’s defendant witness, that the plaintiff works on public holidays, this
since it cannot be proved that the fee corresponding to his work is paid by the defendant’s employer, the bank holiday fee
acceptance of the receivable has been decided.
From the point of view of the counterclaim: The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated by the defendant’s employer
however, the plaintiff’s handwritten statement of resignation indicates otherwise that no evidence has been submitted to the file and
17 of the plaintiff’s law No. 4857, in which it is seen that no reason was given in the statement of resignation
according to the article, the defendant employer must notify the termination in advance, the defendant employer must notify
it has been decided to accept that he will receive notice compensation on the grounds that he has the right to claim compensation.
D) Appeal: The decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy against the plaintiff.
E) Justification:
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff
the appeals of the defendant’s attorney, which are outside the scope of the following paragraph, are not in place.
2-Non-payment of the employee’s wages or … premiums based on the actual wage of the main gain
failure to show it gives the scot the right to a justified termination in accordance with Article 24/II-e of Law 4857. Another
in accordance with Article 435/2 of the TCC, which is in force on the date of termination from the party, although the reason for termination is
if it is necessary to be notified by the party, it will also serve according to the rules of honesty from the party that terminated the contract
if he is not expected to continue the relationship, all the conditions will be considered as a justified reason why the Scot
failure to clearly state the reason for termination is not effective on the result. The plaintiff’s general holiday fees have not been paid
and … it is fixed that their premiums are not reported on the actual fee, and essentially this Court is also
it is accepted. It is fixed that the business relationship has become unbearable for this reason, and the plaintiff shortly after the termination
he filed a lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiff’s employment contract is justified because of the termination of the defendant-versus-defendant
while the claimant’s claim for notice compensation should be rejected, its acceptance is erroneous.
3-Respect for the statements of plaintiff witnesses by the court on the grounds that they have filed a lawsuit against the employer
that the claimant will receive this fee on the grounds that he has not been paid, and therefore cannot prove the overtime pay of the plaintiff
it has been decided to reject it. However, if there is evidence other than witness statements and in the case filed by these witnesses
if it has been accepted that overtime has been done at work, these evidence should be evaluated together. In
according to the file, some payrolls have overtime payments, as well as shift work
the defendant’s witness statements are contradictory, and the defendant’s witness also declares that the plaintiff works outside the shift
he has. On the other hand, the plaintiff worked 18 hours a week overtime at the work of the witness who was heard as a witness
Istanbul Anadolu 9.Is E of the Court dated 07/17/2014.2013/443, K.by decision No. 2014/375
it has been accepted and this decision has been approved and finalized. If you finalize this decision, the defendant’s witness statements the plaintiff
witness statements; When evaluated together with it, it is fixed that there is overtime work at work. Court
it should be decided that the expert will receive overtime work, subject to the evaluation of this report. Written
the decision to reject the overtime pay request on the grounds was erroneous and required a breakdown.
F) The result:
If the appealed decision is OVERTURNED due to the reasons written above, the appeal received by the government
it was decided unanimously on 12/04/2016 to return the fee to the relevant person upon request.