Supreme Court 9. In the decision of the Legal Department E 2015/711b 2016/9142 K dated 12.04.2016;
CASE: Plaintiff-versus-defendant, salary, overtime pay, bank holiday, weekend fee, annual leave the defendant-versus-plaintiff, who will receive the fee, has requested that a decision be made to pay the notice compensation.
The local court has decided to partially accept the original case and accept the case against it.
Although the claimant-vs.-defendant was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the term of the judgment, the case file for After listening to the report organized by the Audit Judge, the file was examined, the rest was discussed and
thought of:
A) Summary of the Plaintiff-Versus-Defendant Request:
The plaintiff-vs. the defendant, on 10/04/2011 to work as a mixer operator and shipment manager he started, worked until 10/04/2013, the latest net fee was TL 2,300. 00,the plaintiff he works 45 hours a week, but overtime wages are not paid, on public holidays that he has not been paid for his work, that his annual leave has not been used, that his fee has not been paid by continuing, you will receive overtime pay, week break fee, annual leave fee and bank holiday fee he probably did.
B) Summary of the Defendant-Versus-Plaintiff Response:
The defendant-vs. the plaintiff requested that the plaintiff work from Dec. 10/04/2011 to 27/03/2013 by resigning until the date of his departure, he worked as a dispatcher for a concrete plant, the plaintiff received a minimum wage
that he worked, that all the plaintiff’s fees were paid, that overtime was required in the defendant’s case that it was done and the compensation was paid, that the plaintiff used his annual leave for the duration of the work,
the defendant works 6 days a week in his place, the plaintiff has no week holiday fee, national holiday that there is no basis for their claims related to their work, that they have made a swap offset, since the plaintiff terminated the employment contract without complying with the notice prerequisites, the plaintiff must pay notice compensation he argued that it was necessary and demanded that the case be dismissed and that the notice compensation be accepted.
C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court and the Trial Process:based on the collected evidence and expert report of the court, from the point of view of the main case: the plaintiff, who is on the burden of proving that overtime and weekend work has been performed, fulfills this obligation of the employee
the fact that the plaintiff’s witnesses who have been heard cannot bring their cases against the defendant, the witness in this direction 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 other evidence to prove that the claimant will receive this item the refusal is based on the fact that the plaintiff worked on public holidays, as agreed with the defendant’s witness statements, this since it cannot be proved that the fee incurred for the study was paid by the defendant’s employer, the public holiday fee it has been decided to accept the variegation.
In respect of the counterclaim: The plaintiff party claimed that the employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer if, however, the plaintiff’s handwritten resignation statement indicates otherwise, no evidence has been submitted to the file and it can be seen that no reason was given in the resignation letter, the plaintiff is under Article 17 of Law No. 4857 in accordance with the article, the respondent employer must notify the termination in advance, the respondent employer must notify it has been decided to accept that he will receive notice compensation on the basis that he has the right to claim compensation.
D) Appeal:The decision was appealed by the deputy defendant against the plaintiff.
E) Justification:
1-According to the articles in the file, the collected evidence and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff the appeals of the defendant’s deputy, which remain outside the scope of the following paragraph, are not in place.
2-Non-payment of the supplier’s fees or … your main earnings on premiums are based on the actual fee failure to show it gives the employee the right to a justified termination in accordance with Article 24/II-e of the Law No. 4857. Another
although the reason for termination is in accordance with Article 435/2 of the Turkish Commercial Code in force on the date of termination from the party
if it must be notified by the party, it must also be provided in accordance with the rules of honesty from the party that terminated the contract in case it is not expected to continue its relationship, all conditions will be considered a justified reason, since the employee failure to clearly state the reason for termination is not effective for the result. The claimant’s general holiday wages have not been paid
and …it is fixed that their premiums are not reported on the actual fee, and essentially this Court also it is accepted. It is fixed that the business relationship has become unbearable for this reason, and the plaintiff is shortly after the termination
he must have filed a lawsuit. In this case, the plaintiff’s employment contract is justified for the reason that the defendant-vs. while the claimant’s claim for notice compensation should be rejected, its acceptance is erroneous.
3-The reputation of the statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses before the court on the grounds that they filed a lawsuit against the employer that the claimant will receive this fee on the grounds that he cannot prove his overtime pay
your refusal has been decided. However, if there is evidence other than witness statements, and in the case filed by these witnesses if it is accepted that overtime has been done in the workplace, these evidence should be evaluated together. In
according to the contents of the file, some payrolls have overtime payments, as well as shift work the defendant’s witness statements are contradictory, and the defendant’s witness declares that the plaintiff also worked outside the shift
he probably did. On the other hand, the plaintiff, who was heard as a witness, worked 18 hours a week overtime during the case Istanbul Anadolu 9.Is The Court’s decision of 17/07/2014 and E.2013/443, K.by decision No. 375/2014
it has been accepted and this decision has been confirmed and finalized. If you make this decision, the defendant’s witness statements are the plaintiff’s
when the witness statements are evaluated together with;, it is fixed that overtime is done at work. Court it should be decided that the expert will receive overtime by evaluating this report. Written the decision to reject the overtime pay claim on the grounds that it was erroneous and required a violation.
F) The result:
If the decision on appeal is VIOLATED for the reasons written above, the appeal received from pesin the refund of the fee to the interested party upon request was unanimously decided on 12/04/2016.