Article 46 of Labor Law No. 4857 states that employees are entitled to twenty-four hours of rest within a seven-day period, provided they have worked on the workdays specified in Article 63 of the same law before the holidays. Whether or not work will be permitted on national holidays and general holidays is determined by collective bargaining agreements or employment contracts. If there is no provision in the contracts, the employee’s consent is required for working on these days.
Weekly leave is taken continuously and is twenty-four hours. If a shorter leave is granted, it cannot be considered as proper weekly leave. Weekly leave cannot be divided or used in parts. Therefore, if a weekly leave is used for less than twenty-four hours, it is considered not to have been used at all.
According to Article 3 of Law No. 2429 on National Holidays and General Holidays, the weekly holiday is Sunday. This general rule is not absolute, and it is also possible to take weekly leave on a day other than Sunday.
An employee who claims to have worked on a weekly holiday is responsible for proving this claim. Workplace records, particularly documents showing entry and exit to and from the workplace, and internal workplace correspondence constitute written evidence for proof of working on a weekly holiday. However, if such written documentation cannot be used to prove the alleged work, the parties must rely on the testimony of witnesses heard.
Proving weekly holiday work is possible through written evidence or witness testimony. The testimony of witnesses who are unaware of, and cannot be expected to know, the workplace’s working schedule cannot be considered significant. If signed payslips indicate that the employee was paid for a weekly holiday, it is not possible to claim that the employee worked more hours. However, proof of an employee’s weekly holiday work can be provided through any type of evidence. However, even if the payslips are signed and without reservations, the employee can provide written evidence for working on a weekly holiday other than what is stated on the payslip. If wage payments of varying amounts, including accrued weekly holiday pay, are made through banks each month, if there is no reservation, written evidence must be provided to prove that work was performed on a weekend beyond the amount paid.
RELATED COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS:
DECISION OF THE 22ND CIVIL CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 2015/11679 E. 2016/19295 K., DATED June 27, 2016
…An employee who claims to have worked on a weekend holiday is obligated to prove this claim, in accordance with the normative theory. The rules regarding payslips also apply here. A payslip bearing the employee’s signature is conclusive evidence until proven false. In other words, unless the payslip’s falsity is alleged and proven, the payment for the weekend holiday pay listed on the signed payslip is presumed to have been made. If the relevant section of the payslip is blank or the payslip is unsigned, the employee can prove that they worked on the weekly holiday with any evidence they can provide.
Workplace records, particularly documents showing entry and exit to the workplace, and internal workplace correspondence constitute written evidence for proof of working on the weekly holiday. However, if such written documentation cannot be substantiated, the parties must rely on the witness testimony heard. Furthermore, certain well-known facts may also be considered.
In the present case, the plaintiff presented no written evidence demonstrating that work occurred on the weekly holiday. Furthermore, the witnesses stated that Friday is a public holiday in Libya. Given the contradictory statements of one plaintiff’s witnesses, stating that he takes Fridays every fortnight, and the other, stating that he never takes Fridays, and the defendant’s witnesses stating that he takes Fridays, the plaintiff failed to prove with sufficient and convincing evidence that he would receive the weekly holiday, and the decision to accept the request, rather than reject it, was erroneous and warranted reversal.
Furthermore, although the plaintiff requested statutory interest on receivables other than severance pay in his lawsuit and amendment petition, the court’s decision to exceed his request and award the highest bank deposit interest on all receivables was inappropriate and warrants reversal.
Source: https://www.kazanci.com/kho2/ibb/files/dsp.php?fn=22hd-2015-11679.htm&kw=11679#fm
TR COURT OF APPEALS 22ND CIVIL DIVISION E. 2016/33047 K. 2017/626 T. 23.1.2017
…If signed payslips show that the employee worked more hours for a weekly holiday, it is not possible to claim that the employee worked more hours. However, if there is a reservation record indicating that the employee’s weekly holiday pay is greater than what appears on the payslip, proof of the weekly holiday work can be provided with any evidence. However, even if the payslips are signed and contain no reservation record, the employee can provide written evidence to prove that they worked on weekends other than those stated on the payslip. If monthly wage payments, including accrued weekly holiday pay, are made through banks in varying amounts, and there is no reservation record, written evidence must be provided to prove that they worked on weekends beyond the amount paid.
In recent years, our Department has consistently implemented the practice of providing deductions if the weekly holiday work is calculated over a long period and the amount is high. However, if the assessment of weekend work is based on written documents and employer records rather than witness testimonies as evidence, such a reduction should not be made.
In the present case, it is established even by the testimony of the defendant’s witnesses that the plaintiff maintained three blocks of flats, each with 24 apartments. The plaintiff’s witness, L. Ç., who resided in the complex from the 10th month of 2009 until the termination date, stated that the plaintiff worked every day of the week, including Sundays. The plaintiff’s witness, G. Ö., stated that he had no eyewitness knowledge. The defendant’s witness, Ü. Y., a resident of the complex and also a manager during the plaintiff’s employment, stated that there were five doormen on the complex, that the plaintiff worked on Sundays when his turn came, and otherwise used his weekend leave.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s witness, L. Ç., who stated that he resided in the complex from the 10th month of 2009 until the termination date, stated that the plaintiff worked every weekend on his holiday. Before the 10th month of 2009, based on the statement of the defendant’s witness Ü. Y., the weekly holiday pay should have been determined based on the calculation made based on the acceptance that he worked 1 weekday off in 5 weeks, but the decision to reject the request based on an erroneous assessment is erroneous.