Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court
9th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2014/14603
Decision No: 2015/30987
Date of Decision: 3.11.2015
The plaintiff requested a decision ordering the payment of vacation pay.
The local court partially accepted the claim.
The defendant’s lawyer appealed within the prescribed time limit. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, and the necessary discussions and considerations were made:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
In the petition, the plaintiff’s attorney stated in summary that his client started working at the defendant university’s publishing house on 03.04.1990 and worked continuously until 14.01.2013. He further claimed that due to the heavy workload, his client never took any paid leave during his working life; A) Summary of Defendant’s Response:
The defendant requested the dismissal of the case.
C) Summary of Local Court Decision:
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled that the plaintiff worked continuously at the defendant’s workplace between April 2, 1990, and January 14, 2013, and that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit stating that he did not use his annual leave. The court determined that the defendant employer should prove with a written document that the plaintiff used his annual leave during the period he worked, but the defendant employer did not submit any such document. Therefore, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that it could not be proven that the plaintiff used his annual leave during the period he worked.
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.
E) Reasoning:
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence collected, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals, excluding those within the scope of the following paragraph, are unfounded.
2- The expert’s calculation of the gross amount without considering the employee’s share of social security contributions and unemployment insurance deductions is erroneous.
3- The court’s failure to consider that the defendant university is exempt from court fees pursuant to Article 56/b of Law No. 2547 is incorrect.
4- The failure to consider that the lack of specification as to whether the awarded amounts are net or gross would create uncertainty in enforcement is also erroneous and necessitates reversal.
F) Conclusion:
For the reasons stated above, the appealed decision is REVERSED, unanimously decided on November 3, 2015.