IT IS AGAINST THE PROCEDURE AND LAW TO INCLUDE THE PERIOD SPENT DURING THE SEMESTER HOLIDAY IN THE WORKING PERIOD OF THE EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE SCHOOL

25 Aug IT IS AGAINST THE PROCEDURE AND LAW TO INCLUDE THE PERIOD SPENT DURING THE SEMESTER HOLIDAY IN THE WORKING PERIOD OF THE EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE SCHOOL

Posted at 14:10h in General, INFORMATION by Yağız Canseven 0 Comments

0 Likes

10. Legal Department

Base Number: 2020/2378

Decision Number: 2020/5230

“Case Law Text”
Court :Employment Tribunal

The case relates to the service determination request.
The court decided to accept the case on the grounds specified in the declaration.
After the decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney, it became clear that the appeal request was pending, and after the report issued by the examination Judge and the papers in the file were read, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was determined.
Plaintiff attorney, 20.10.2004 – 06.06.2008 relating to the period between the detection of a period of service with the agency backward the provision of Social Security to be taken under the terms of the registration requested, but by the court, with the adoption of the case … in terms of the defendants and the plaintiff from the defendant …’s next 20/10/2004-70 days from the date of 31/12/2004; 01/01/2005-10/06/2005 160 days between dates; 12/09/2005-13/12/2005 91 days between dates; 01/01/2006-15/01/2006 15 days between dates; …from the defendant’s next 01/05/2006-19/06/2006 48 days between dates, 18/09/2006-15/10/2006 27 days between dates, 01/01/2007-13/06/2007 162 days between dates, 17/09/2007-31/12/2007 between the dates of 134 days, 01/01/2008-30 days between the date the determination of trying to be 31/01/2008; the denial of the defendant … if a decision is made about cleaning and Construction Services Company Limited filed, the court while calculating the period of adoption, education and training of the start and end times of the period are taken into account into account that in the place of receipt, but …’or one of its workplace began in spring break in the academic year 2007/2008, although when calculating time working with 28.1.2018 1.1.2008 – 31.1.2008 30 days from the date of service of the decision on the determination of the cause of destruction is against the law and procedures and is to be issued.
However, since correcting this issue does not require a retrial, the provision should not be violated (provisional 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. according to Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure. it must be corrected and approved in accordance with the article.
Conclusion: provision 1.“30 days between 01.01.2008-31.1.2008” section contained in the article was deleted and deleted instead of; “27 days between 01.01.2008 – 27.01.2008” sentences were written, the provision was corrected and approved in this form, 30.09.2020 day was unanimously decried Dec.