Anasayfa » Blog » Supreme Court Decision on Determination of Worker’s Salary

Supreme Court Decision on Determination of Worker’s Salary

T.R. Supreme Court

General Assembly of Law

Master: 2006/9-479

Decision: 2006/484

Decision Date: 28.06.2006

SUMMARY: Due to the defendant’s objection to the wage research made by the professional organization reported by the plaintiff, it is necessary to make a decision in terms of the specified labor rights and receivables by determining the wage income of the plaintiff in the said period by conducting a wage survey from another professional organization, the Association of Private Tutors, considering all the collected evidence, but resisting the previous decision is against the procedure and law.

 

(4857 S.K. art. 32)

Case: At the end of the trial due to the <claim> case between the parties; With the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, dated 31.01.2006 and numbered 2005/34921,2006/1842, upon the request of the parties’ attorneys to review the decision dated 22.09.2005 and numbered 2005/750-945 given by the Ankara 13th Labor Court regarding the partial acceptance of the case,

(… In the decision to reverse the plaintiff worker’s monthly wage, our department stated that a wage research should be conducted by the relevant professional organization, and the court complied with the decision to reverse the claim. The letter regarding the plaintiff’s monthly wage was asked from an association established by employees of private teaching institutions, and the conclusion was reached according to the letter received. Since the wage research was not carried out by the relevant professional organization, the content of the decision to reverse was not fulfilled.

The issue should be asked to the relevant professional organization, the Association of Private Private Tutors (Özdebir), and a decision should be made by evaluating all the evidence in the file together…),

The case was overturned and the file was returned to its place, and at the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision.

After it was examined by the General Assembly of Legal Affairs and it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed in due time and the papers in the file were read, the necessary discussion was taken:

Decision: There is a dispute between the parties regarding the wage paid to the plaintiff worker.

In case of disputes that may arise between the parties to the employment contract regarding the amount of wages, it is possible to prove the actual wage with all kinds of evidence. It can be proven that the wage written in the wage slips signed by the worker or in the service contract is not real, with evidence such as money receipts showing the monthly wage, bank records, commercial book records, witness statements. In some cases where it is not possible to determine the wage without leaving any room for doubt with the available evidence, the wage may also be determined by asking the relevant professional organizations, specifying the work done by the plaintiff, length of service and other determining characteristics.

However, the fee amounts reported by professional organizations are not binding on the parties and the court, and must be supported by other information and documents.

For the stated reasons, due to the defendant’s objection to the wage research conducted by the professional organization reported by the plaintiff, a wage survey was conducted by another professional organization, the Association of Private Tutors, and by taking into consideration all the collected evidence, the plaintiff’s wage income for the said period was determined and a decision was made in terms of the specified labor rights and receivables. However, resisting the previous decision is against the procedure and law. For the reasons stated, the decision to resist must be overturned.

Result: It was decided by majority vote on 28.06.2006 that the appeal objections of the defendant’s attorney were accepted and the decision to resist was REVERSED in accordance with Article 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the reasons given above and in the special chamber’s reversal decision, and that the advance appeal fee was refunded upon request.

Bir yanıt yazın

E-posta adresiniz yayınlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir