T.C.
\nSUPREME
\n9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
\nE. 2016\/29524
\nK. 2017\/12122
\nT. 6.7.2017
\nThe plaintiff has decided that the termination is invalid, returned to work and its legal consequences will be ruled
\nhe must have wanted to.
\nThe Local Court has decided to accept the case.
\nAn appeal has been made by the defendant’s lawyer during the sentencing period, and the trial judge for the case file
\nafter listening to the report held by the file was examined, the need to be discussed and considered:
\nVerdict: a -) summary of Plaintiff request:
\nAttorney for the plaintiff, the most recent editor at the defendant’s workplace from 09\/01\/2015 to 31\/08\/2015
\nin the writing of the defendant’s employer’s termination declaration that he worked as; his client often reported falling ill
\nAldi, the idea that various illnesses are caused by work stress and the location of the company where he works
\nconsidering the fact that there will be no change in the conditions of the media sector it receives
\nin case of possession, the situation in the workplace affects the normal functioning,
\nclaims that it causes disruption and negativity and hinders the maintenance of the service relationship
\nthe termination of the employment contract by the employer is not based on a valid reason.,
\nin the first three years of his client’s employment, he took almost no leave of absence due to illness and
\nhe’s on sick leave not more than a day or two a year, but in the last year of his work, he’s stressed out.
\nhe said that he had to report more frequently due to diseases caused by these diseases.
\nthe resulting reports do not exceed a total of 10-12 days within a year, as well as the client’s reported
\nthat day, even from home that has the right to work, are doing work almost 7 days a week,
\nthat the plaintiff did not even use the annual leave, that his client was ill and took the Leave
\nIt is possible to cause disruptions and negativity in the workplace (such as shingles and diabetes)
\nthat he is not, that his client is in constant contact with his team-mates as long as he works at his employer,
\nthe plaintiff said that even on the days when it was reported, he gave guidance and information to his friends from home.
\nstating that the employment contract was terminated without valid reason,
\nhe asked to be extradited.
\nB -) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:
\nThe defendant’s employer’s attorney is the owner of the plaintiff’s Haber T\u00fcrk TV, and the plaintiff’s Haber T\u00fcrk
\nHe said he worked as an editor in the culture and Arts Unit of television, and asked for the plaintiff’s defence, and
\nprior to the termination process, he received 20 reports and used 40 days of reports in total.
\nin addition to reporting days, Doctor’s examinations, traffic jams, etc. reasons allowed many times
\nif the claimant does not come to work full day or part day by making an excuse, the contract of employment is terminated.
\nlast 6 months prior to the period of the manager … ‘ a late arrival due to migraines, due to traffic
\nsending SMS in the form that he can’t make it to the meeting, that he stays on the road, that he will go to the doctor’s examination
\nreporting to the news meeting with unit managers that takes place between 9.25 and 10.15 am each day
\ncontinuous disturbance, inspection, traffic congestion etc. citing the circumstances and not participating, plaintiff
\nin this way, often receiving reports and making excuses leads to negativity in the workplace,
\nas to the fact that he did not appoint a replacement to enter the meeting and that the plaintiff lived in relation to his work
\nhis statements about the troubles, stating that work stress had reached the point where he was going to make himself sick, have long been
\nhis approach to his job is assessed, causing disruption and negativity in the workplace, and service
\nby paying all legal rights to the contract of employment which are deemed to be hindrance to the continuation of the relationship
\nhe argued that it was annulled and that the case should be dismissed.<\/p>\n
C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:
\nAt the end of the trial by the court, the defendant of the plaintiff who was not in the position of acting employer
\nhe started his employment in the workplace under an indefinite employment contract on 09\/2011, most recently as editor
\nEmployment Law No. 4857 of the employment contract on 31\/08\/2015 by the defendant employer while he was working
\n17. and 18. in accordance with the article terminated, within 1 month of the right to withdraw this case has been filed
\nthe plaintiff’s seniority as of the date of termination is more than 6 months, and he or she has more than 30 workers in his or her workplace.
\nwhere the worker is employed, the claimant is within the scope of job security and the legal proceedings are filed
\nit was found to be of benefit and accepted. As a result of all these determinations, on the burden of proof
\nexamination of all records of the plaintiff worker submitted to the file by the defendant found; termination
\naccording to the reason in the declaration, the claimant’s duty description, efficiency, the corporate principles of the Employer, Compliance
\nwhether the required workplace rules are objectively and concretely pre-determined or not
\nthe plaintiff often reports and makes excuses when examining the witness statements
\nfinally, a replacement is about to enter the meeting, which leads to workplace negativity.
\nhis failure to take charge and the plaintiff’s statements about the troubles he had with his job, the stress of the job itself
\nstating that he has reached the point of making him sick, considering his approach to his job for a long time, he is at work
\nclaims that it causes glitches and negatives and hinders the maintenance of the service relationship
\nif a termination is made, the claimant is reported at the specified dates.
\nwhere there is no dispute between the parties, with which flawed conduct of the action attributed to the plaintiff worker
\ndefendant that he acted in breach of contract and as a result his business relationship was adversely affected
\nthe employer shall, in its entirety and in its entirety, specify on which material fact it is based, clearly
\nthe breach of the contract, which cannot be revealed, by contrast, is not based on the fault and negligence of the worker
\nsince the worker cannot be held responsible for his behavior, he cannot be held responsible for his behavior.
\nthe duty of the claimant, working conditions, where the reason for valid termination cannot be mentioned
\ndirect business without any warning or warning due to the actions attributed to the plaintiff
\non the grounds that termination of the contract would constitute a violation of the principle that termination should be a last resort
\nhis acceptance is decided.
\nD -) Appeal:
\nThe defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
\nE -) Rationale:
\n20\/II of Labor Law No. 4857.c.Clearly in Article 1, proof that termination is based on valid reasons
\nthe burden was given to the defendant’s employer.
\nIn fulfilling the burden of proof, the employer will first prove that it complies with the formal conditions of termination.
\nAccordingly, the termination of the written notice, in certain cases, the defense of the worker is requested
\ndocumentation of the reasons for termination based on the content of the written termination as concrete and clear
\nhe must have shown it. Once it is understood that the employer has fulfilled the formal conditions, the content
\nthe stage of proving that the reasons for termination are valid (or justified) will be passed.
\n18 Of The Labor Law No. 4857. article refers to the employer, the worker’s behaviour and competence
\nit has given the authority to terminate the employment contract for reasons arising. From worker’s behaviour
\nthe purpose followed in the termination resulting from the conduct of the worker contrary to the employment contract he had previously committed
\nnot to punish or sanction; to continue to breach its contractual obligations,
\nit is to avoid the possibility of a repeat. Termination of employment contract due to worker’s behavior
\nin order for the employee to act contrary to the labor contract, a violation of the contract must exist. Labour’s flawed
\nhe contravened the contract with his conduct and as a result his business relationship was in a negative way
\nif affected, there is a valid termination resulting from the worker’s conduct. By contrast, Labour’s
\na liability to the worker for his conduct contrary to the contract, which is not based on defect or negligence
\nthe reason for valid termination resulting from the worker’s conduct as it cannot be installed
\nit can’t be mentioned.
\nThe reasons for the worker’s behaviour and competence are stated in Article 25 of the same act. in the article
\nbesides the stated reasons, although not of this nature, it is important to see work in the workplaces
\ncauses that affect the extent negatively. Caused by the worker’s behavior or incapacity
\nfor reasons, it is important and reasonable for the employer to maintain the working relationship
\nwhere it cannot be expected, it will be necessary to accept that the termination is based on valid reasons.
\nThe employer with the burden of proof is responsible for the plaintiff’s conduct or inadequacy in the valid and justified cause.
\nit must also prove that it leads to negativity in the workplace and that the working relationship becomes unbearable.
\nOn the other hand, the reasons of the Labor Law which are valid termination due to the inadequacy of the worker
\none of the examples that he would bestow upon the right is getting sick frequently and receiving reports.
\nIn case of receiving frequent reports, the employer will not be able to benefit from the employee’s employment, albeit intermittently. Often
\nthe absence of the worker, who is frequently ill and receiving reports, will therefore lead to negative effects in the workplace.
\nit is an obvious phenomenon. The reason for being sick frequently in the rationale of the Labour Code is the reason for competence
\nto be considered as an example is to accept that it leads to negativity in the workplace.
\n18\/3 Of The Employment Law No. 4857 Of Employers. in accordance with article f 25\/I. of the same lawunder Article b
\nin addition, the employee may not terminate the employment contract within the six-week waiting period. But the worker’s
\nfrequent reports, including intermittent, do not fall within this coverage. Total in case of frequent reports
\neven if the time it is reported remains within the waiting period, frequent reporting can lead to downsides in the workplace.
\nif it is opened, the employee’s employment contract may be terminated with notice or for a period of time. In this case the termination is valid
\nit’s based on reason.
\nAccording to the file contents, the plaintiff was 9 times in 2015, 5 times in 2014, 3 times in 2013 and 2 times in 2012
\nhe received 39 days of reports in total, which he repeated frequently in 2015, although other years were not taken into account,
\nin fact, it is understood that this situation is also accepted by the court. Plaintiff’s frequent
\nthere are reports that he was late for meetings or did not attend by stating that he was going to the doctor.
\nthere were also reports that he did not attend and did not report. Claimant’s most recently received
\nin his defense, he reported having problems with his supervisor, his psychology deteriorated and his discomfort was caused by
\nhe said he took it.<\/p>\n
According to these concrete material and legal facts, the claimant attended the meetings late whether he received a report or not.
\nor not attending, having problems with their supervisor at work, receiving frequent reports and meetings
\nit is understood that his failure to attend has led to downsides in the workplace. Behavior and yield with cause
\ntermination from a worker’s perspective, which leads to workplace negativity and makes the continuation of the work relationship unbearable
\nthere can be no mention of the principle of last resort. Because the termination is based on valid reasons, the case
\nacceptance by written justification instead of rejection is wrong.
\nIn accordance with Article 20\/3 of the Labour Law No. 4857, our office has decided as follows.
\nConclusion: with the reason described above;
\n1.Overturning the court’s decision,
\n2.Dismisses case,
\n3.Since the tuition is received in advance, there is no room for re-receipt,
\n4.To be left over the prosecution expense of the plaintiff,
\n5.The fee of TL 1,980.00 determined according to the tariff in force at the date of the decision is from the claimant of the power of attorney
\nto be taken and given to the defendant,
\n6.On 06.07.2017, the appeal fee received in advance will be returned to the defendant upon request.
\nit was a unanimous decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT E. 2016\/29524 K. 2017\/12122 T. 6.7.2017 The plaintiff has decided that the termination is invalid, returned to work and its legal consequences will be ruled he must have wanted to. The Local Court has decided to accept the case. An…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,295,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n