Republic of Turkey
COURT OF APPEALS
9TH CIVIL DIVISION
E. 2005/19254 – K. 2005/34532 – D. 25.10.2005
• FIXED-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT (Investigation into whether the employee terminated prematurely worked at another workplace during the remaining period, whether they sought new employment, and whether they deliberately foregone any income)
• REMAINING CONTRACT PERIOD WAGE (Investigation into whether the employee worked at another workplace during the remaining period, whether they sought new employment, and whether they deliberately foregone any income)
• DISCOUNT CONDITIONS (Taking into account the employee’s savings resulting from not being able to work at the workplace in question) (Required Deduction from the Remaining Contract Term Wage to be Calculated)
818/Art. 325
SUMMARY: The plaintiff requested an order for payment of compensation and wages. An investigation should be conducted to determine whether the employee whose fixed-term employment contract was terminated before its expiration date worked at another workplace during the remaining period, whether they searched for new employment, and whether they intentionally foregone earnings. The employee’s savings resulting from not being able to work at the workplace in question should be taken into account and a deduction should be made from the remaining contract term wage to be calculated.
CASE: The plaintiff requested an order for payment of compensation and wages.
The local court partially granted the request. Since the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant appealed within the judgment period, the case file was reviewed and its merits were discussed and considered:
DECISION: 1- Based on the evidence gathered in the file and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, all of the defendant’s appeals, as well as the plaintiff’s appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph, are not valid.
2- The plaintiff worked as an occupational physician and was terminated by the employer without justifiable cause before the expiration of his fixed-term employment contract. The expert calculated the remaining wages based on employment contracts drawn up between the parties for work at two different workplaces. The court partially granted the request with a discretionary reduction of 70%. The court did not investigate whether the plaintiff worked at another workplace during the remaining term, and, given that the plaintiff is a physician, whether he had any other income-generating activities during this period. It should be determined whether the plaintiff was seeking new employment and whether he had any income that he deliberately foregone. Finally, if the plaintiff had any expenses that he avoided due to not working at the defendant’s workplace, these matters should be determined and a reduction of these amounts should be made pursuant to Article 325 of the Code of Obligations. The court’s incomplete review of the decision was erroneous and necessitated reversal.
RESULT: The appealed decision is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, and the prepaid appeal fee is refunded to the relevant party upon request. It was unanimously decided on October 25, 2005.