Employee receivables are regulated in Labor Law No. 4857 and are monetary values in the form of wages, compensation, and other compensation for an employee’s work and labor.
When employees leave or are dismissed from their workplaces, labor rights and receivables arise. Employers and employees often enter into disputes on this issue, and labor rights and receivables are brought to court through lawsuits.
In labor cases, receivables awarded in favor of employees are often determined in gross amounts, with deductions taken into account during the enforcement process. In enforcement proceedings, the first step is to determine whether the court has determined the receivables to be determined in gross amounts. If the receivables are determined in gross amounts, the receivables should be converted to net amounts by making the necessary deductions, and enforcement proceedings should be initiated based on these amounts.
Initiating enforcement proceedings based on a judgment for employee receivables in gross amounts without converting them to net amounts is a violation of the court’s judgment and is subject to a complaint. The complaint in question concerns public order because it constitutes a departure from the judgment in the enforcement proceedings and can be filed indefinitely in the enforcement court through a complaint.
The relevant Supreme Court decision is as follows:
TR COURT OF APPEALS, 8TH CIVIL DIVISION, E. 2015/17339K. 2015/20274T. November 12, 2015
SUMMARY: The case concerns a request to cancel the enforcement proceedings. In a judgment-based enforcement proceeding, the complaint alleging that the receivable items were demanded in gross and that legal deductions were not made constitutes a violation of the judgment. Such complaints, due to their public order nature, can be brought before the Enforcement Court indefinitely. In this case, the Court should, if necessary, conduct an expert examination and render a decision based on the outcome. However, dismissing the complaint due to the time limit is not appropriate.
CASE: Upon the plaintiff’s request for an appeal within the timeframe of the Court’s decision dated and numbered above, the relevant file was sent to the Chamber. After hearing the report prepared by the Investigating Judge for the case file and reviewing all the documents in the file, the matter was discussed and considered:
DECISION: The debtor’s attorney, the creditor, submitted a motion to the Kırşehir 1st Civil Court of First Instance dated January 20, 2015. In the enforcement proceedings initiated against his client by the Kırşehir Enforcement Office, pursuant to its decision numbered 2013/216, decision numbered 2015/49, with file numbered 2015/1229, the court requested the cancellation of the proceedings, stating that the receivables were requested in gross amounts and that legal deductions had not been made.
The court ruled that the seven-day complaint period had elapsed since the enforcement order was served, and therefore the complaint was dismissed on time grounds. The debtor’s attorney appealed the decision.
In the enforcement proceedings with a judgment, a complaint alleging that the receivables were requested in gross amounts and that legal deductions had not been made constitutes a violation of the judgment. Such complaints, due to their concern with public order, may be brought before the Enforcement Court indefinitely. (HGK Decision numbered 2000/12-1002 dated June 21, 2000)
In this case, the court may, if necessary, conduct an expert examination and, if necessary, conduct an expert examination. While a decision should be rendered based on the outcome, dismissing the complaint due to the time limit is incorrect.
RESULT: It was unanimously decided on November 12, 2015, that the debtor’s attorney’s appeals be accepted, and the court’s decision be REVERSED for the reasons stated above, pursuant to Article 428 of Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, by reference to Article 366 of the Civil Procedure Code (CCP) and Provisional Article 3 of Civil Procedure Code No. 6100. The parties may request a rectification of the decision against the decision within 10 days from the notification of the Court of Cassation Chamber’s decision, in accordance with Article 388/4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CCP Art. 297/ç) and Article 366/3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 27.70 TL advance fee shall be refunded to the plaintiff upon request.