T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
22.law office

Base: 2013/17991
Decision: 2014/28823
Date of Decision: 23.10.2014

CASE OF LABOR RECEIVABLES – THE PLAINTIFF HAS NOT RESIGNED – THE PLAINTIFF HAS SIGNED THE DOCUMENT COMPULSORILY TO RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS – THE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT CANNOT BE PROVED BY THE EMPLOYER FOR THE RIGHTFUL REASON – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION

SUMMARY: It turned out that the plaintiff did not resign, but signed the document as a mandatory condition for receiving an unemployment pension. Since it cannot be proved by the employer that the plaintiff’s employment contract has been terminated for the rightful reason, the plaintiff has been entitled to severance pay and notice compensation for non-compliance with notice measures. The judgment was upheld by the appellate court.

(4857 P. K. m. 17) (1475 p. K. m. 17)

Case and Decision: The plaintiff has requested that the severance pay and notification compensation receivables be decided.

The court partially ruled on the request.

The parties have been appealed by their lawyers during the period of the judgment, but the Examining Judge for the case file is C. After listening to the report edited by Koray Ünal, the file was reviewed, discussed and considered as necessary:

Conclusion: According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal reasons and, in particular, the lack of accuracy in the discretion of the evidence, it was decided unanimously on 23.10.2014 to APPROVE the decision in accordance with the procedure and law by rejecting all appeals that were not in the two parties, the cost of the appeal written below is 00.90 TL to the plaintiff, and the remainder to the defendant.

T.C.
ANKARA LABOUR COURT

MAINLY NO: 2012/604
DECISION NO: 2013/71

CASE DATE: 03.10.2012
DATE OF DECISION: 20.02.2013

At the end of the open trial of the receivables dec between the parties held in our court;

IT WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY:

In summary, in the plaintiff’s lawsuit petition; defendant Solar Wire Mesh Ltd. Şti. 27.07.2006 in the workplace-26.02.2009 working between the dates of employment by the employer was dissolved as unfair that that document was signed by all rights, but would not take no, the fee 1.600 TL. although, he noted that his premiums are deposited on the minimum wage, provided that he reserves the right to an excess of 500 TL for the time being.he requested and sued the defendant to decide on the collection and deposit of premiums at the actual fee.

The defendant Sun Mat Company’s deputy stated in his reply petition that the plaintiff left the job voluntarily, that all his rights were paid, that his wage was the minimum wage, that the employees were paid according to their titles, that they signed the payroll dispute indifferently, and requested that the case be decided to be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s claims for Labor service logged along with the determination of a case, determination of the case the decision to service the division, given the court’s 2012/284 by judging on the basis of a decision made by the plaintiff with the court’s main file additional claims for severance compensation retained numbered 2012/261 has been sued. Due to the fact that both cases were connected with each other, the decision to merge was made, it was taken between us on dec basis, and the trial was continued through this case file.

From the documents examined during the trial and the entire file scope; it was understood that the plaintiff started working at the defendant’s workplace on 27 dec07/2006, worked until 26/02/2009, quit his job on that date, by whom the termination was made and the amount of the final fee was the subject of dispute between the parties.

He argued that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the defendant; when he asked for his exit to receive unemployment benefits, a document was signed stating that he had received all his rights. The defendant’s witnesses stated that the plaintiff’s meals for leaving work deteriorated in quality, the workers were uncomfortable with the food, complained, they heard that the plaintiff was sent by the foreman to the employer’s office, where he left. It is clear that there is a problem between the plaintiff and the employer because the food does not turn out well, and the plaintiff says that the defendant insists on employing the plaintiff, because the plaintiff is unhappy with the job the dec is doing, it is contrary to the usual flow of life. Leaving work the claimant signed a declaration of resignation and release the document that contains in itself is contradictory, that the payment of severance pay to workers who resigned to be specified, also not to leave from work due to economic hardship to the plaintiff’s statements in the desired direction, force the payment of severance pay with the content of the witness’s declaration that it was not colonies, are contradictory, and therefore this document is not esteemed. It turns out that the plaintiff did not resign, but signed the document on a mandatory basis in order to receive an unemployment pension. Since it cannot be proved by the employer that the plaintiff’s employment contract has been terminated for the rightful reason, the plaintiff has been entitled to severance pay and notice compensation for non-compliance with notice measures.

Decision No. 2012/284 and decision No. 2012/906 of our court, which were reviewed from this case in relation to the determination of the plaintiff’s fee, the Court of Cassation 21. The Law Department’s decision No. 2012/24527 on the basis of 2012/2344 was finalized with the approval decision, accordingly, it was finalized that the plaintiff received the written fee in the payrolls. Accordingly, the calculations made by the expert on a gradual basis are based on the lowest one.

According to the grounds described above, it was necessary to decide on the adoption of the case, on the partial acceptance of the combined case.

PROVISION: With the adoption of the case, the merged case will be transferred to Ankara 16. With the partial acceptance of the Labor Court’s case No. 2012/2613,

1- £1,749.83. since 26.02.2009, the date of termination of the agreement, net severance pay is taken from the defendant together with the highest bank deposit interest applied to deposits by banks and paid to the plaintiff,

2- £ 803.49. 250 TL of the net notice compensation will be taken from the defendant together with the legal interest that will be processed from 08.05.2012, which is the date of the lawsuit on October 27.03.2009 and the remaining part of the additional date of the lawsuit, and paid to the plaintiff,

3- Refusal of excess claims in October additional case,

4- 174.42 TL, which must be received according to the fees tariff from the amount stipulated in this case and the merged case. A total of TL 138.25 received in advance from the relative decision and application fee. (21,15+117,10=138,25 TL.) the remaining 36.17 TL is missing with the deduction of the fee.according to the register of the will of the treasury, taken from the defendant,

5- TL 440, calculated in favor of the plaintiff representing himself by proxy, is taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff for the payment of the attorney’s fee, TL 639.79, calculated in favor of the defendant due to rejection. obtaining the power of attorney fee from the plaintiff and granting it to the defendant,

6- The trial costs of TL 53.05 and TL 21.15 made by the plaintiff in this case and the breakdown is shown below. 46.05 TL, which was made by the plaintiff in the merged case, to receive the advance fee from the defendant and give it to the plaintiff. according to the acceptance and rejection rate of the cost, it is 14.91 TL.sinin and 117.10 TL. 100 TL invested by the plaintiff to receive the down payment from the defendant and give it to the plaintiff. the remaining 72 TL from the expense advance.the decision that the parties have the right to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court within 8 days, after deducting the costs that will be incurred in the period leading up to the finalization of the decision, was clearly read and duly reviewed in front of the attorneys of the parties. 20/02/2013