T.R.
Supreme Court
9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2017/6457
K. 2018/8931
T. 17.4.2018
* REQUEST FOR COLLECTION OF LABOR RECEIVABLES (It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employment contract was justified by the Defendant Employer or not – It is understood from the statements of the Defendant Witnesses that the price of the product given by the Customer was not received by the Plaintiff, but by the Worker Who Sells at the Same Counter and Who Was Not Heard Although Reported as a Witness – Concrete Reason for the Justified Termination of the Defendant Employer / That the Plaintiff’s Rejection of Severance and Notice Pay Requests Instead of Acceptance Was Inappropriate)
* TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (The Plaintiff’s Employment Contract was Terminated on the Ground that the Price of the Product Made in Dollars was Falsified and the Difference Bequeathed to the Plaintiff – Even From the Statements of the Defendant Witnesses, It was Understood that the Price of the Product Paid by the Customer Was Not Received by the Plaintiff, but by the Worker Who Sold at the Same Counter and Who Was Not Heard Although He Was Reported as a Witness/The Defendant Employer’s Justified Reason for Termination Cannot Prove Concretely)
* EQUAL TRANSACTION DEBT (It was understood that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale and the issued receipt, and the cashier was dismissed due to the same incident, but was rehired the next day – it was not concretely proven that the plaintiff had falsified and got the difference in the product sale, and the other worker who received the actual price from the customer was rehired and acted contrary to the equal treatment obligation)
4857/m.25
SUMMARY: The case is about the request for collection of labor receivables.
It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employment contract was justified by the defendant employer.
The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the grounds that the price of the product, which was sold in dollars and given to the customer for 2300 dollars, was falsified and sold for 2000 dollars, and the difference was kept by the plaintiff. However, even from the defendant witness statements, it is understood that the $2300 for the product given by the customer was not received by the plaintiff, but by a worker named T., who was selling at the same cash register and was not heard even though he was reported as a witness, that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale and the issued receipt, and that the cashier T. was dismissed due to the same incident, but was rehired the next day. While it has not been concretely proven that the plaintiff falsified and obtained the difference in product sales, it is understood that the obligation of equal treatment was violated by rehiring the other worker, T., who received the actual price from the customer.
The defendant employer has not been able to concretely prove the reason for justified termination, and it is inappropriate to reject the plaintiff’s severance and notice pay demands instead of accepting them.
CASE: The plaintiff requested a decision to pay severance pay, notice pay, bad faith compensation, moral compensation, overtime pay, national holiday and general holiday pay.
The local court decided to partially accept the case.
Although an appeal was made by the lawyers of the parties within the sentencing period, the file was examined after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard, and the necessary discussions were made and considered:
DECISION: A-) Summary of Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff started working in the defendant’s workplace in Kemer district as a cashier on 06.06.2012, then worked as an insured in the defendant’s workplace in Side-Manavgat, received a net monthly wage of 1100.00 TL, worked six days a week from 13:00 to 02:00, worked in this way on religious and public holidays and took one day off a week, overtime wages were not paid, and Claiming that his contract was unfairly terminated by the employer, he requested severance pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, overtime pay, bad faith compensa tion and non-pecuniary damages.
B-) Summary of the Defendant’s Answer:
The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was justified, in accordance with the procedure and law, that his salary was the amount shown on the payroll, that the work he did during public, religious and public holidays was reflected in his payroll and that he was not paid overtime.
C-) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
Based on the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s termination of the employment contract was justified, that he did not have the right to claim moral compensation and bad faith compensation due to the justification of termination, that he could not prove that he worked on national holidays and public holidays, and that it was proven through witness statements that he worked overtime.
D-) Appeal:
The parties appealed the decision.
E-) Justification:
1-) According to the articles in the file, the collected evidence and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, all of the defendant’s and plaintiff’s appeal objections that are outside the scope of the following paragraph are invalid.
2-) It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employment contract was justified by the defendant employer.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the grounds that the product price, which was sold in dollars and given to the customer for 2300 dollars, was falsified and sold for 2000 dollars, and the difference remained with the plaintiff. However, even from the defendant witness statements, it is understood that the $2300 for the product given by the customer was not received by the plaintiff, but by the worker named T. 17.04.2018, who sold at the same cash register and was not heard even though he was reported as a witness, that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale and the issued receipt, and that the cashier T. was dismissed due to the same incident, but was rehired the next day. While it has not been concretely proven that the plaintiff falsified and obtained the difference in product sales, it is understood that the obligation of equal treatment was violated by rehiring the other worker, T., who received the actual price from the customer.
The defendant employer could not concretely prove the reason for justified termination. For these reasons, the rejection of the plaintiff’s severance and notice pay demands instead of acceptance was erroneous and required reversal.
RESULT: It was unanimously decided on 17.04.2018 to REVERSE the appealed decision for the reason stated above and to refund the appeal fee collected in advance to the relevant person upon request.