T.C. SUPREME
22.Legal Department

Basis: 2013/17991
Decision: 2014/28823
Decision Date: 23.10.2014

LABOR CLAIMS CASE – PLAINTIFF DID NOT RESIGN – PLAINTIFF SIGNED THE DOCUMENT MANDATORY TO RECEIVE AN UNEMPLOYMENT PENSION – PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE EMPLOYER THAT IT WAS TERMINATED FOR A JUSTIFIED REASON – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION

Summary: It is understood that the plaintiff did not resign, but signed the document as mandatory to receive an unemployment pension. Since it cannot be proven by the employer that the plaintiff’s employment contract has been terminated for a justified reason, the plaintiff is entitled to severance pay and notice compensation for non-compliance with the notice guidelines. The sentence was upheld by the appellate authority.

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

Case and decision: the plaintiff asked for a decision to pay severance pay and notice compensation receivables.

The court granted the request in part.

During his term, the parties were appealed by their lawyers, and the judge of the audit for the case file C. After listening to the report organized by Koray Ünal, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:

Conclusion: according to the articles in the file, the evidence based on the decision and the legal reasons and especially the lack of a hit in the evaluation of the evidence, it was decided unanimously on 23.10.2014 to approve the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law with the rejection of all appeals that are not in place of both parties, the appellate expense written below is TL 00.90 to the plaintiff and the remainder to the defendant.

T.C.
ANKARA EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

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

TRIAL DATE: 03.10.2012
DECISION DATE: 20.02.2013

At the end of the open trial of the claim case between the parties in our court;

DULY NOTED:

The plaintiff summed up the lawsuit in his petition; the defendant Sun Wicker Ltd. Ltd. he worked in the workplace between 27.07.2006-26.02.2009, the employment contract was unfairly terminated by the employer, he signed a document stating that he received all his rights, but he did not receive any receivables, his salary is 1,600 TL. although, he said that his premiums were invested over the minimum wage, for now, 500 TL, without reserving his rights to the surplus.he demanded and sued the defendant to decide whether to collect and deposit his premiums over the actual fee.

Defendant Güneş Wicker company representative in the response petition in summary; the plaintiff left the job at his own request, all his rights were paid, his salary was the minimum wage, employees were paid according to their titles, payrolls signed passion indifferently, stating that the case was decided to be dismissed.

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

From the scope of the documents and all files examined, it is understood that the plaintiff started working at the defendant’s workplace on 27.07.2006, worked until 26.02.2009, left his job on this date, by whom the termination was made and the amount of his final salary was a 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, he was signed a document stating that he had received all his rights. Defendant witnesses stated that the plaintiff had deteriorated the quality of his meals to leave work, that the workers were uncomfortable with the meals, complained, that the plaintiff had been sent by the foreman to the employer’s office, and that they had heard him leave. It is clear that there is a problem between the plaintiff and the employer because the food does not come out well, and the employer who is not satisfied with the work done by the plaintiff is contrary to the usual course of life for the defendant to say that he insists on working the plaintiff. Leaving work the claimant signed the resignation and release of the document that contains a declaration in itself is contradictory; that the payment of severance pay to workers who resigned to be specified, also not to leave from work, economic hardship due 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 that are contradictory, and therefore this document is not esteemed. It is understood that the claimant did not resign, signing the document as mandatory to receive an unemployment pension. Since it cannot be proven by the employer that the plaintiff’s employment contract has been terminated for a justified reason, the plaintiff is entitled to severance pay and notice compensation for non-compliance with the notice guidelines.

Decision No. 2012/284 basic 2012/906 of our court, which was detailed in this case regarding the determination of the plaintiff’s fee, Court of Cassation 21. 2012/2344 of the legal department was finalized with the Consent Decree No. 2012/24527, accordingly, the plaintiff received the written fee in payrolls. Accordingly, the lower of the calculations made by the expert gradually was based.

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

Verdict: with the acceptance of the case, Ankara of the combined case 16. With the partial adoption of the Employment Tribunal’s Case No. 2012/261,

1 – £ 1,749. 83. as of 26.02.2009, the date of termination of the contract of net severance pay, together with the highest bank deposit interest applied to deposits by banks, is taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff,

2 – £ 803.49. part of the net notice compensation of US $ 250 is paid to the plaintiff by taking it from the defendant along with the legal interest that will be processed from 27.03.2009, the remaining part is an additional date of the case from 08.05.2012,

3 – refusal of additional claims in the additional case,

4-174.42 TL, which must be received according to the fees tariff, from the amount provided in this case and the combined case. A total of 138.25 TL received in advance from the relative decision and announcement fee. (21.15 + 117.10= £ 138.25.) 36.17 TL, which is missing with the offset of the mortar.sin is taken from the defendant to the Treasury’s will record,

5-440 TL proxy fee calculated in favor of the plaintiff representing himself with the proxy is taken from the defendant and paid to the plaintiff, 639.79 TL calculated in favor of the defendant due to rejection. attorney’s fee is taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant,

6-the legal costs of $ 53.05 made by the plaintiff in this case and shown below, and $ 21.15. 46,05 TL made by the plaintiff in the combined case to receive the advance fee from the defendant and give it to the plaintiff. 14.91 TL according to the acceptance and rejection rate of the expense.sinin and £ 117.10. 100 TL invested by the plaintiff to receive the advance fee from the defendant and give it to the plaintiff. the remaining $ 72 from the expense advance.the decision that the parties have the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation within 8 days was clearly read to the face of the deputies of the parties and duly made tefhim. 20/02/2013