24 Dec SUPREME COURT DECISION ON COLLECTIVE LABOR AGREEMENT
T.C SUPREME COURT 22.Legal Department Base: 2019/ 7019 Decision: 2019 / 17351 Decision Date: 26.09.2019
ABSTRACT: In a concrete case, the defendant Electricity Generation A. From the very beginning of the plaintiff’s employer by the court.Sh. The decision to determine that it is the General Directorate is in accordance with the scope of the file and the decision to disrupt it. Since the defendant employer does not have a non-union employee in the workplace who can be a precedent for the plaintiff and does not benefit from a collective bargaining agreement, there is also no inaccuracy in rejecting claims for receivables arising from the difference in wages determined by the plaintiff’s difference in wages. However, the plaintiff has been using Electricity Generation A from the beginning.Sh. according to the acceptance of the worker; as stated in the bozma declaration, it is necessary to calculate and determine that he will receive additional tediye on the fee he actually receives. Without observing this aspect, the decision to reject the additional tediye receivable was erroneous and required re-distortion.
(4857 P. K. m. 32)
Case: It was understood that the decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the dectiff’s deputy to examine the appeal and was within the period of the appeal request. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff’s Attorney, his client worker belonging to the defendant employer kayden lower working as a worker in the workplace, that is based on the collusion of the relationship between the employer and subcontractor, the defendant provides to its workers citing the need for the financial rights of the client to the benefit of the client with the identification of the defendant from the outset of the actual employer, the difference will charge you with a part to be taken under the terms of the labor receivables asked.
Summary of the Respondent’s Response:
The defendant’s deputy asked for the case to be dismissed.
Summary of the Court Decision:
Based on the collected evidence and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case.
Upon the appeal of the decision by the defendant, our Department decided to reject other appeals and asked whether there was a precedent worker who performed similar or the same work as the plaintiff but did not benefit from a collective bargaining agreement to determine the plaintiff’s wage, examining how the acceptance of the monthly wage amount was reached in the precedent files, in terms of concrete based on the determination coefficient are reached TL wage 73,22 file charges with both intake and to determine how to be clarified by the defendant driver’s record since 2003, 2003 reported wages for both drivers received after considering the elimination of this contradiction by asking the defendant with the plaintiff’s costs that are suitable for the control of corruption, it was decided that it is necessary to establish the reasons.
The Court that complied with the violation determined how the fee accepted in the precedent files was reached, but at the request of the plaintiff’s deputy, it was decided to partially accept the case based on the calculation based on the daily fee in the labor fair list reported by the Presidium of the Supreme Scientific Council of the Ministry of Environment and Urbanization.
The decision on appeal of the denial of the appeal by the defendant appeals the decision dairemizce poet, given precedent to the plaintiff the defendant employer in the workplace that may be non-union and a worker’s employees that do not benefit from collective bargaining agreements, according to a notice from the plaintiff’s fee actually paid and the wage gap over receivable detected with the rejection of their claims should be taken under a provision of the receivables if you have unpaid labor on the grounds that it was decided to corruption.
According to the Court, which complied with the violation, the plaintiff’s employer from the very beginning was the defendant Electricity Generation A.Sh. With the determination that it is the General Directorate, it has been decided to reject the receivables subject to the lawsuit.
Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
Reason:
1-According to the articles in the file, the decision was suitable for overturning, and there was no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all the plaintiff’s appeals outside the scope of the following paragraph.
2-In a concrete case; the defendant’s Electricity Generation A. From the very beginning of the plaintiff’s employer by the court.Sh. The decision to determine that it is the General Directorate is in accordance with the scope of the file and the decision to disrupt it. Since the defendant employer does not have a non-union employee in the workplace who can be a precedent for the plaintiff and does not benefit from a collective bargaining agreement, there is also no inaccuracy in rejecting claims for receivables arising from the difference in wages determined by the plaintiff’s difference in wages. However, the plaintiff has been using Electricity Generation A from the beginning.Sh. according to the acceptance of the worker; as stated in the bozma declaration, it is necessary to calculate and determine that he will receive additional tediye on the fee he actually receives. Without observing this aspect, the decision to reject the additional tediye receivable was erroneous and required re-distortion.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 26.09.2019 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person upon request.
No Comments