9th CIVIL CHAMBER | Basis No: 2017/4905 | Decision No: 2017/8483 “LEGAL PRECEDENT” COURT: Labor Court LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested the payment of notice pay, overtime wages, weekly rest day wages, and national holiday and general holiday wages.
The judgment rendered by the local court for the partial acceptance of the lawsuit was examined following the appeals filed by the counsels of the parties:
– D E C I S I O N –
A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim: The plaintiff claimed that he worked as a mixer driver at the defendant’s ready-mixed concrete facility between 23/11/2012 and 12/08/2013, and that his employment contract was unfairly terminated by the employer. He requested the collection of notice pay and other wage receivables.
B) Summary of the Defendant’s Response: The defendant argued that the plaintiff caused an accident with the truck he was driving, inflicting damage significantly exceeding the plaintiff’s 30-day wage, thus disqualifying him from severance/notice pay.
REASONS FOR REVERSAL:
1. Justified Termination due to Damage to the Employer (Art. 25/II-i of the Labor Law): Pursuant to Article 25/II-(i) of the Labor Law No. 4857, an employer has the right to terminate for just cause if the employee causes damage to machinery, installations, or property belonging to the employer in an amount exceeding the employee’s thirty-day wage.
Calculation: If the employee is found at fault, the amount of damage must be calculated according to the percentage of fault. If the remaining damage amount after this deduction still exceeds the 30-day gross wage, the termination is justified. In the concrete case, the court failed to obtain an expert report to determine the employee’s fault rate and the exact amount of damage.
2. Determination of Monthly Wage: While the defendant relied on payrolls showing a lower wage, witness statements (including the defendant’s own witness) supported the plaintiff’s claim of a higher net wage. The court’s failure to base the calculation on the proven higher wage was erroneous.
3. Validity of Timesheets (Puantaj):The plaintiff contested the copies of timesheets submitted by the employer. The court must request the originals of these documents and take the plaintiff’s statement regarding the signatures before evaluating their validity.
4. Determination of Overtime and Working Hours: The working hours accepted by the lower court (up to 16 hours a day) were found to be contrary to the ordinary course of life. The High Court determined that a more reasonable acceptance would be 08:00–18:00 in summer and 08:00–22:00 in winter.
5. Break Periods (Ara Dinlenme): Pursuant to Article 68 of the Labor Law, break periods are determined gradually:
For work up to 11 hours (inclusive): At least 1 hour.
For work exceeding 11 hours: At least 1.5 hours. In the concrete case, the court erroneously deducted 1.5 hours for an 11-hour workday, whereas it should have been 1 hour.
6. Ambiguity in Gross/Net Amounts: Failure to specify whether the awarded amounts are gross or net causes hesitation during the execution phase, which constitutes a ground for reversal.
CONCLUSION: It was UNANIMOUSLY DECIDED on 22/05/2017 to REVERSE (BOZULMASINA) the judgment for the reasons stated above.