30 Apr FAILURE TO RESPECT EMPLOYEE STATEMENTS TERMINATED BY THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE SAME REASON AS THE PLAINTIFF – SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT OF CASSATION 7. DEPARTMENT OF LAW E. 2015/13624, K. 2016/9164, T. 25.4.2016
• LABOR RECEIVABLES LAWSUIT (ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE BREAKDOWN CHART, THE PLAINTIFF STARTED WORKING AT ANOTHER WORKPLACE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DATE WHEN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED / THE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES ARE WORKERS WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED FOR THE SAME REASON, SO THEIR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RESPECTED – THE PLAINTIFF TERMINATED THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HIMSELF WITHOUT A JUSTIFIED REASON / SENIORITY AND NOTICE COMPENSATION CLAIMS WILL BE REJECTED)
• CLAIM FOR SEVERANCE AND NOTICE COMPENSATION (ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE BREAKDOWN SCHEDULE, THE PLAINTIFF STARTED WORKING AT ANOTHER WORKPLACE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED / THE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES WERE WORKERS WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED FOR THE SAME REASON, THEIR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RESPECTED – THE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS TERMINATED BY HIM WITHOUT A JUSTIFIED REASON / THE CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED )
• THE STATEMENTS OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS EXPIRED FOR THE SAME REASON AS THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT BE RESPECTED (ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE BREAKDOWN CHART, THE PLAINTIFF STARTED WORKING AT ANOTHER WORKPLACE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TERMINATED / THE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES ARE WORKERS WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS EXPIRED FOR THE SAME REASON, THEIR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RESPECTED – THE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS BEEN TERMINATED FOR NO JUSTIFIED REASON / SEVERANCE AND NOTICE COMPENSATION CLAIMS WILL BE REJECTED)
• ACCORDING TO THE SERVICE BREAKDOWN SCHEDULE, THE PLAINTIFF STARTS WORKING AT ANOTHER WORKPLACE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH HE CLAIMS THAT HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS BEEN TERMINATED (SINCE THE PLAINTIFF’S WITNESSES ARE WORKERS WHOSE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT HAS BEEN TERMINATED FOR THE SAME REASON, THEIR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RESPECTED – THE PLAINTIFF HAS TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITHOUT A JUSTIFIED REASON / SENIORITY AND NOTICE COMPENSATION CLAIMS SHOULD BE REJECTED)
1475/m. 14
4857/m. 17
ABSTRACT: The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated by the employer for unfair reason and requested the collection of severance and notice compensation receivables from the defendant.
The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated unfairly by the employer due to the removal of the shift supervisor position by the employer, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff left the job along with 4 other employees to work in another workplace. According to the service casting schedule, it is understood that the plaintiff started working at another workplace two days before the date on which he claims that his employment contract has been terminated. Plaintiff witnesses are employees whose employment contract has been terminated for the same reason and their statements cannot be respected. The defendant’s witnesses have declared that the shift supervisor position has not been removed. It is understood that the plaintiff terminated his employment contract without a justifiable reason, but severance and notice compensation claims must be rejected.
CASE: It was understood that the decision made as a result of the case between the parties was requested by the defendant’s Decency to be examined by the Supreme Court and the appeal request was in due course. The case was reviewed and discussed as necessary:
DECISION : 1-According to the articles in the file, the material evidence on which the judgment is based on the legal and juridical grounds also adopted by our Department, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of these evidence, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are rejected,
2- The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated by the employer for an unfair reason and requested the defendant to collect the severance and notice compensation receivables.
The defendant has asked for the case to be dismissed.
The court decided to partially accept the case.
There is a dispute between the parties as to who terminated the employment contract and, accordingly, whether the plaintiff is entitled to severance and Decommissioning compensation.
In a concrete case, the plaintiff by the employer due to the removal of the shift supervisor position upon the termination of employment by the employer on 31.05.2013 wrongful claim with the defendant at the plaintiff’s argued that the other workers had left for work 4 work in conjunction with other work. Although the plaintiff claims that he worked until 31.05.2013, it is understood that he started working at another workplace on 29.05.2013 according to the service casting schedule. Plaintiff witnesses are employees whose employment contract has been terminated for the same reason and their statements cannot be respected. The defendant’s witnesses have declared that the shift supervisor position has not been removed. According to the entire contents of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff terminated his employment contract without a justifiable reason, but the decision to accept the severance and notice compensation claims with a wrongful assessment was erroneous and required a breakdown, while it was necessary to refuse.
CONCLUSION : It was decided unanimously on 25.04.2016 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, that there is no place for examining the defendant’s appeals for the account of receivables according to the reason for the reversal, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the defendant upon request.
No Comments