16 Jan Labor Claims Case
T.C SUPREME COURT
Basis: 2017 / 17885
Decision: 2019 / 1250
Decision Date: 16.01.2019
Case: examination of the decision made as a result of the case between the parties on appeal by the defendant T.C. … requested by his attorney, it became clear that the appeals were pending. After hearing the report issued by the examination Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
A) Summary Of The Plaintiff’s Request:
Attorney of the plaintiff, as of 15/03/2005 of his client T.C. … ‘na … education and Research Hospital cleaning work with tender next to the companies that he retired as a cleaning officer, his last employer … company, works 5 days a week, works on national holidays, religious holidays other days except the first day, part of his leave claims that he was not used, surplus claim and claim that he will receive severance pay, overtime, leave fee, national holiday general holiday will receive a decision on the collection of the defendant.
B) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:
Defendant … joint venture attorney; client company and other defendant T.C. … between the signing of a contract for the purchase of certain services, the workers received orders and instructions from the administration, which is the main employer, the plaintiff directly T.C. …’s workers by accepting the case against the client due to the absence of a denial of the antagonism of the company, should the plaintiff’s clients within 5 month period working for the company in order to qualify for severance pay 1 year, that should have worked, the granting of permits, whether the absence of work on public holidays and national holidays, more work are free of objection arguing about whether or animosity with the adoption of the first lawsuit in a denial of a grudge, hostility and baseless lawsuits are not accepted when the merits of a denial of unfair objection to the decision requested that it be given.
Defendant T.C. … attorney, in the case filed by the plaintiff, it is illegal to direct animosity to the client administration, the defendant administration of the hospital cleaning, food, security, etc. the winner of the tender tender with the fulfillment of the job in real entities is provided through the tender after the tender subject to the job that holds the real-legal persons, the tender, mutual debts and obligations between the parties by making a commitment about the making of the contract is determined by how, the company is subject to the tender of the grounds that are used when the selection of workers and tools and in the selection of moving independently from the business owner, the administration is not the employer of the business owner, that it is not only the case of the plaintiff from the successful tenderer of the employer, the staff of the institution is the staff, he argued that Labor receivables will expire in 5 years, so the plaintiff’s requested paid leave, national holiday general holiday and overtime will expire, and demanded that the case filed without a legal basis contrary to the procedure and law be decided to reject.
C) summary of Local Court decision and trial process:
Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the defendant ministry and the defendant company have a principal-sub-employer relationship, the plaintiff’s most recent work in the training and Research Hospital belonging to the defendant Ministry was in the defendant company and lasted until 31/07/2013, the last Gross is 1,021.50 TL. he received a fee, requested an allocation on 31/07/2013, Law No. 4857 120. 14 of the Law No. 1475, which was left in force by Article. the plaintiff’s entitled to retirement severance pay as stated in the article, the granting of annual permits and fees that are paid by the defendant to determine the burden of proof on the consent form used by permission of the plaintiff’s total for 30 days, seniority remains have been identified from that period for 70 days due to the balance it deserves, where the statement of this witness from the prosecution; half of the wages paid on national holidays and public holidays working in the document where the information is not available and, frequently, the partial adoption of this claim the plaintiff, 6 days a week from 07:00-16:00 from Dec to 9 hours 1 hour 8 hours daily rest when it is removed, that is available to work 48 hours per week, a minimum of 45 hours of the time the job when overtime work is 3 hours per week in the study period were offset located on the grounds where it was decided to partial acceptance of the case.
The decision was appealed by the acting Ministry of the defendant.
1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant T.C. … appeals that fall outside the scope of the following bend are not in place.
2-plaintiff in the petition of the lawsuit clearly stated that the defendant worked 5 days a week in the workplace and requested overtime pay. 25 of HMK 6100, the court accepted that the plaintiff worked six days a week to exceed his claim. it is contrary to the principle of commitment to the case specified in the article and required violation.
A unanimous decision was made on 16.01.2019 to overturn the appeal decision for the reason written above.