21 May THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS IS IN DIRECT COOPERATION WITH THE PLAINTIFF IS A DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
T.C.
SUPREME
law office
2015/20572
2018/1190
24.1.2018
* LABOR RECEIVABLES ( the prosecutor, the witness Witness to each other they are, and witness statements was made on the basis of the calculations it is understood/and people who claim to be working together in the same office for the same reason, and the union cannot be considered directly as they are in the witness statements of interest – that can’t be proved in the absence of other evidence the plaintiff overtime and public holidays national holidays and fee receivables receivables attached to the denial of severance by the difference in food costs )
* EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME WORKPLACE TESTIFY TO EACH OTHER (For the Same Reason, They Are Claimants And Cannot be Considered as Witness Statements Because They Are Directly in the Union of Interests – No Other Evidence Is Provided For This Reason, The Plaintiff Will Receive Overtime National Holiday and General Holiday Pay Meal Fee Difference That Cannot be Proven, And the Severance Pay Due to These Receivables Will Be Rejected)
* Directly by the witness of the plaintiff to be in the Union interest ( and people who claim to be working together in the same office for the same reason, and the union cannot be considered directly as they are in the witness statements of interest – that can’t be proved in the absence of other evidence the plaintiff overtime and public holidays national holidays and fee receivables receivables attached to the denial of severance by the difference in food costs )
6100/m.255
ABSTRACT: The plaintiff has requested severance pay, overtime pay, week break pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, collection of the balance meal fee from the defendant by claiming that he works as a driver and that the defendant has been sent a warning due to the fact that the plaintiff’s labor receivables have not been paid. The plaintiff has proved with the witness the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and general holiday wage receivables that he stated based on the justified termination. In the case files reviewed on appeal on the same day, it was understood that the plaintiffs were witnesses to each other and that the calculations were based on witness statements. Plaintiffs are persons who work together in the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason, and they are directly in the union of interests. For this reason, testimony statements cannot be respected. It has not been presented in any other evidence. For this reason, the plaintiff must be denied overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay, meal fee difference receivables that cannot be proven, and severance pay related to these receivables.
LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that the severance pay and overtime pay, week break pay, annual leave pay, balance meal pay, national holiday and general holiday pay be decided to pay the receivables.
The local court has decided to partially accept the case.
Although it has been appealed by the defendant’s lawyer at a hearing during the sentencing period; HUMK.nun 438.after the decision was made to reject the request for a hearing from the amount in accordance with the article and to conduct the examination on the documents, the report prepared by the Examining Judge was submitted, the file was examined, and the need was discussed and considered:
DECISION : A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff requested severance pay, overtime pay, week break pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, balance meal fee to be collected from the defendant by claiming that he worked as a driver and that the defendant was sent a warning due to the fact that the plaintiff’s labor receivables were not paid.
B-) Summary of Respondent’s Response:
The defendant asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to absenteeism.
C-) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court and the Trial Process:
Based on the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case.
D-) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
E-) Justification:
The plaintiff claimed that the employee had rightly terminated his employment contract because his receivables had not been paid, and asked for overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay, week break, meal difference and severance pay depending on them.
The defendant employer has filed an absence defense.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s request for a week off and annual paid leave, which was ruled that they would receive overtime, national holidays and general holidays, and, accordingly, severance pay.
The plaintiff has proved with the witness the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and general holiday wage receivables that he stated based on the justified termination. In the case files, which were reviewed on the appeal on the same day, the plaintiffs testified to each other(2015/4898 E., 2015/34583 e., 36420 E.,) and it was understood that the calculations were made on the basis of witness statements.
Plaintiffs are persons who work together in the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason, and they are directly in the union of interests. For this reason, testimony statements cannot be respected. It has not been presented in any other evidence. For this reason, the plaintiff’s decision in writing that cannot be proven overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay, meal fee difference receivables and severance pay due to these receivables should be rejected is incorrect and required to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 24.01.2018 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 if requested.
No Comments