CLOSURE OF THE WORKPLACE DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
20176
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-20176,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

CLOSURE OF THE WORKPLACE DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS

CLOSURE OF THE WORKPLACE DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS

Without the need for any official explanation, or T.C. In the event that the employer temporarily closes the place of work in accordance with the recommendation of the Ministry of Health or other public institutions and organizations, as a rule, the employer’s obligation to pay the workers’ wages remains. Because in this case, the employer is considered to have closed the workplace on his own initiative, without any compelling reasons, and the obligation to pay the employee’s wages does not disappear. However, in this case, we believe that the employer does not have to pay for side rights such as premiums, roads, meals related to being at work / actually working.
In the event that the workplace is temporarily closed, the employee’s consent is also not required in this case, since the obligation to pay wages arising from the law will be considered to remain.
ii. Mandatory Closure of the Workplace by the Employer in Accordance with a Public Decision
In accordance with Article 40 of the Labor Code No. 4857, if there are compelling reasons that cause work to stop at work or prevent workers from working for more than 1 (one) week, the employment contract is suspended for this 1 (one) week period, and during this period the employee is paid half the salary
it is paid.
3. Whether the closure of workplaces due to the mandatory decision of public institutions and organizations is a compelling reason is evaluated separately for each concrete event. According to the established case law of the Supreme Court, the compelling reasons are “…the interruption of transportation due to natural events such as snow, earthquakes,
situations such as the application of quarantine due to an epidemic disease are compelling reasons,”he recalls. In this context, due to the corona virus quarantines or curfews in the world, as we’ve seen instances in the case of regional enforce the implementation of the worker due to not being able to come to work during a week’s time, 4857, pursuant to Article 40 of the Labor Code, the employer is obliged to pay half the wages of the workers. Because this article is intended for cases such as quarantine practices due to epidemics, as stated in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision.

“unable to work or not to work due to the compelling reasons shown in paragraphs (III) of Articles 24 and 25
the employee is paid half the wage for each day up to a week during this waiting period.”
“The reasons that prevent the worker from working should occur around the worker. The reasons arising from the workplace and preventing work are not covered by this article. For example, the closure of the workplace is not considered a compelling reason, but situations such as interruption of transportation due to natural events such as floods, snow, earthquakes, quarantine due to an epidemic are compelling reasons.” (Supreme Court 9.H.D.T. 09.05.2016, E. 2016/7175, K. 2016/11446/ Supreme Court 22. H.D.T. 04.02.2014, E. 2013/2499, K 2014/1389/ Supreme Court 9.HDT. 29.05.2014, E. 2012/10932, K. 2014/17580)

according to paragraph 3 of Article 25 of the Labor Code No. 4857, if there is a compelling reason or force majeure that prevents the employee from working for more than 1 (one) week, the employer may terminate the employment contract for a justifiable reason after a period of 1 (one) week has elapsed. This provision was organized by compelling
the reason is that it occurs not at work, but around the employee, and as a result, the employee is unable to fulfill the obligation to see work due to the impossibility of temporary performance without defects, and the employment contract is suspended. On the basis of a compelling reason that occurred at work and required a work stoppage of more than 1 (one) week, the employer may not terminate the employment contract for the rightful reason. In this case, he is right for the following reason
the right of termination belongs to the employee.
It should be noted that in case of justified termination for compelling reasons, it is necessary to pay the employee severance pay and all receivables related to termination. Notice compensation is not required to be paid.
However, as of the date of preparation of this article, there is no compelling reason to block work across the country yet, with the exception of some establishments such as theaters, cinemas, show centers, bars, gyms, baths, indoor children’s playgrounds that have been decided to be closed privately, this
we would like to note that our evaluations under the title will not yet find an application area for all workplaces.

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran