T.C.
SUPREME
9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2017/5716
DECISION NO: 2017/14596
DECISION DATE: 2.10.2017

Summary: the employer of the worker who works in places subject to floor ownership is the floor owners and the floor owners are equally responsible for the labor receivables. The management is the employer representative. Although the case against the management is in place, the provision should be established against the floor owners in accordance with Article 20/a of the condominium law.

The plaintiff requested that the decision be made to pay severance pay, notice compensation and national holiday and general holiday fees, annual leave fee, week holiday fee, overtime pay and wage receivables.

The Local Court has decided to partially accept the case.

After hearing the report issued by the trial judge for the case file, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary, although it was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer during the sentencing period.:

DECISION

Acting plaintiff; your client, the defendant, a security guard in the workplace, yard cleanup as a worker 01/05/2009-30/08/2013 running continuously in the range of dates of the site is a construction site 300 is a site where people live in crowded and 81 of the site, cleaning the garden, watering, fertilizing, and doing all the maintenance and cleaning internal and external maintenance to do their job from the month of November of 2012, started his client in the morning from 06.00-21.00 hours between working a vacation week including Saturday and Sunday she didn’t use his client didn’t take the fees, in the last year, one day per week on Tuesday, but this day of leave 16.00 hours return to the site services continue ettğini, the last 10 days as a fee of 250.00 TL.he did not take the annual leave in 2009-2010, he did not use any leave in 2009-2010, he did not use the first three days leave in the following years, he did not use any leave in the official holidays, he was told that he should continue to work under the same conditions before the end of the leave even though they gave him a short leave,, severance and notice compensation, annual leave fee, national holiday, general holiday, week holiday, overtime and wage claims from the defendant requested to be collected.

The defendant’s representative argued that the plaintiff worked as an apartment officer, did not start work on 16/07/2012 with the end of the annual leave, that the plaintiff could be contacted on 18/07/2012 and that the plaintiff left with his own request of the same date and that he left the site by submitting a petition.

With the partial acceptance of the case, the court decided to collect severance and notice compensation, annual leave fee, national holiday, general holiday, week holiday, overtime pay from the defendant.

The defendant appealed the decision.

1 -) according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based by the evidence collected in the file, the defendant’s appeals that are outside the scope of the following clause are not in place.

2 -) whether the plaintiff works during the Week holidays is the subject of dispute between the parties.
Although the court has ruled that the receivables calculated according to the plaintiff witness statements, the defendant’s witness and the plaintiff’s witness have declared that the plaintiff is on leave on Sunday. In this case, when the statements of the defendant’s witnesses and the contradictory and abstract statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses were taken into account, it was understood that the plaintiff could not prove his claim that he was working during the Week holidays. Acceptance of the request instead of rejection is incorrect.

3 -) the employer of the worker who works in places subject to floor ownership is the floor owners and the floor owners are equally responsible for the labor receivables. The management is the employer representative. Although the case against the management is in place, the provision should be established against the floor owners in accordance with Article 20/a of the condominium law.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 02.10.2017 that the decision of Appeal should be overturned due to the reasons stated above and that the application fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person if requested.