9. Legal Department 2014/8250 E. , 2014/22224 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT : BAKIRKOY 11. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
DATE : 04/02/2014
NUMBER : 2013/111-2014/64
CASE : The plaintiff requested that the termination be invalidated and that his/her return to work be decided.
The local court has ruled on the request.
Although the defendant was appealed by his lawyer during the sentencing period, after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
The Decision Of The Supreme Court
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated without a justified or valid reason, and asked that the termination be invalidated and a decision be made on his return to work.
B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:
The defendant, the plaintiff’s employment was revoked for good cause if the plaintiff previously careless and sloppy work due to the damage inflicted on the employer, but only caveat is given by the employer; source article read, if on the date of termination specifying that the plaintiff would go to the Friday prayer in the service of the workers allocated for this purpose by work, he left, but instead of going to the Friday prayer in this time and in turn have had coffee with the workers returning from the prayer service is back to the workplace, this situation is taken under record that the witnesses at this time continued to work in workplace, friday prayers, but instead of going to Friday prayers, he spent time at coffee, which is a behavior that does not comply with accuracy and commitment, the employer’s trust was abused, his defense was asked to defend, the plaintiff’s employment contract was rightly terminated, arguing that he asked to leave the case and asked to reject the case.
C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:
The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that it is impossible to say that the behavior that caused the termination fundamentally destroyed the working relationship with the plaintiff employee before the employer, that the behavior that should have resulted in the warning of the maximum number of employees was not sincere to justify the reason for termination, that it is impossible to talk about a legally valid termination.
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.
E) Justification:
A concrete dispute, the plaintiff employee by the employer for workers who want to go to the Friday prayer Friday prayer service allocated to the employer, noting that that hard work would go to leave and went into the café and negativity in the workplace caused by this action the plaintiff, in this case, when the relationship of trust between the parties is shaken, the continuation of the business relationship and the termination from the employer so the employer can not be expected to be valid without considering the case to be decided upon the adoption of incorrect justification is mistaken.
In accordance with Article 20/3 of the Labor Code No. 4857, our Department has decided as follows.
PROVISION :
With the justification described above;
1. TO OVERTURN AND ELIMINATE the court’s decision,
2. REFUSAL OF THE Case,
3. Since the fee is received in advance, there is no place for its re-receipt,
4. Leaving the trial expense incurred by the plaintiff above, the trial expense incurred by the defendant (226.80) is collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant,
5. According to the tariff in force at the date of the decision, a fee of TL 1,500 is charged to obtain the power of attorney from the plaintiff and grant it to the defendant,
6. Refund of the appeal fee received in advance to the defendant at his request,
It was definitely decided by unanimous decision on 30.06.2014.