T.O
SUPREME
9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2014/811
DECISION NO: 2015/14090
DECISION DATE: 14.04.2015

> IF WORK IS DONE OUTSIDE THE WORK OF THE WORKER, HE / SHE WILL KNOW THE WAGE FROM THE EMPLOYER.

The plaintiff requested that the payment of unpaid wages and balance period wage receivables be decided. The Local Court has decided to partially accept the case. After hearing the report issued by the judge of Tekkik for the case file, the case file was examined, it was discussed and considered as necessary.:

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant worked as an Oiler within the employer subject to the maritime labor law and that the employment contract was unfairly terminated by the employer and that they would receive unpaid wages and balance period wages.

The defendant requested a dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract had been terminated for the right reason.

On the basis of the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the defendant could not qualify for the balance period fee because he was right to conquer the employment contract, and that he would receive unpaid wages from the last month he worked.

The parties have appealed the decision.

1-according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based by the evidence collected in the file, all the plaintiff’s Appeals, which are outside the scope of the following paragraph, are not in place.

2.there is a dispute between the parties as to whether a fixed-term employment contract has been terminated by the employer for a justified reason prior to its term.

7 of the Maritime Labour Law No. 854. three types of contracts to be made with shipmen are mentioned in the article. Accordingly, the contract of employment with the Seafarer may be made for a certain period of time, for the voyage or indefinitely.

In the concrete case, the employment contract dated 24.06.2008 was made between the parties for a period of 9 months. The duty of the plaintiff is stated as Oiler. However, the plaintiff had the hole in the ship’s swage tank repaired by welding and the cleaning of this tank was done. It is stated that this payment will not be made by the employer after the claimant has requested an extra fee from the employer for this transaction. In the petition dated 12.11.2008 addressed to the employer by the worker, it was stated that he was entitled to this wage and that it was not right to threaten the employer with dismissal because of his claim for this right. The work contract of the plaintiff was terminated by the Disciplinary Committee dated 12.11.2008 on this petition. The decision of the disciplinary committee stated that the plaintiff had caused unrest on the ship and spoke slang, and that the employer had submitted two minutes to prove this matter, but could not prove the accuracy of the contents of these minutes. The employer is right to claim that he will charge the reason for the justified termination. It should be accepted by the court that the expert report in the file will be subject to a re-evaluation and that the plaintiff will receive a balance period fee.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 14.04.2015 that the appeal decision was overturned due to the above reasons and that the appeal fee received in advance was returned to the relevant person upon request.