T.C. Supreme Court 22. Legal Department<\/p>\n
Principal No: 2015\/16933
\nDecision No: 2017\/19050<\/p>\n
Decision Date: 25.09.2017
\nThe Decision Of The Supreme Court
\nTribunal:Employment Tribunal
\nCASE TYPE: RECEIVABLE
\nAttorney of the plaintiff to review the decision made as a result of the case between the parties
\nasked by, it was understood the appeal was pending. Review Judge for case file \u2026
\nafter listening to the report held by the file was examined, the need to be discussed and considered:<\/p>\n
SUPREME COURT DECISION<\/p>\n
Summary Of Plaintiff Request:
\nAttorney of the plaintiff; that his client works as a branch sales manager at the defendant’s workplace, working hours
\nAlthough 09: 00-18: 00 08: 00-08: 30 to come to work at 20: 30 and later
\nworking, not being paid much work, also the employer of milk leave during the period of birth
\nAlthough it is meal time from 12:30 to 13:30, it is determined from 12:00 to 14:30, except 3 or 4 times
\noverwork by stating that he was unable to use his milk permit due to customer appointments and company meetings
\nhe demanded that the fee and the milk leave fee be collected from the defendant.
\nSummary Of The Defendant’s Defence:
\nDefendant’s attorney; plaintiff working with salary plus premium, extra work included in the fee, 3 months
\n9 months of milk leave except maternity leave, in case of kullan\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131z pay
\nthe dossier requested a dismissal of the case because there was no regulation.
\nSummary Of The Court Ruling:
\nThe court held that the working hours of the plaintiff were determined by him and limited to 270 hours.
\nthat excess work must be accepted within the wage, the plaintiff’s salary + premium duly working
\naccording to his and the results of his study he also received variable premiums from the employer, exceeding 270 hours
\nany document or statement reflected in the file that he was working on could not be identified,
\nthe plaintiff declared that the worker could not use the milk permit, although he demanded the fee of the Supreme Court 9. Law
\nApartment on 01\/02\/2012,
\n2010\/33549-2012\/2569 based on Decision No. according to the warrant, the permission is granted if the worker is added to milk
\nwhere there is no rule in the labour code that a wage shall be paid, the sanction shall be laid down in Article 104 of the Labour Code.
\nit is stated in the article that the employer should be fined, so that the claimant
\neven if he was not granted a milk permit, he would not be able to charge a fee in return.
\nit has been decided to decline.
\nAppeal:
\nThe decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
\nReason:
\n1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based,
\nthe plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following clause are not in place.
\n2-dispute between the parties on whether the claimant is entitled to receive milk permits
\nis available.
\n74\/7 of Labor Law No. 4857. article \u201cwomen workers to breastfeed their children under one year old
\nfor a total of one and a half hours per day milk is allowed. What hours of this period and divided by how much
\nthe worker himself determines to be used. This period is counted from the daily working time. editing in the form of \u201d
\nis available.
\nAct No. 4857, 104. contrary to the provision of this article regarding the regulation of the work of the employer
\nmilk permit by introducing the regulation in which a fine will be imposed if he acts
\nits use has been secured under administrative sanction.
\nOur previous opinion regarding the milk permit is based on 13.06.2016 en 2015\/12878 2016\/17527
\nResolution No. 69\/3 of the Labor Law No. 4857 \u201d in the paragraph \u201cnight work of workers seven and a half
\nshall not exceed the hour, according to the provision that the night work shall be paid on a higher wage.
\nalthough there is no legal regulation, this situation is clarified by the established case law of our department
\nagreed that extra work done at night should be paid on a higher wage
\nhas been carried out. A similar comment on the issue of milk permits should be made to the fairness and … and the law
\nit was judged to be better suited to the purpose of the putter.
\nIn the aforementioned decision, ;
\n“Under the law, women workers are required to breastfeed their children for 1.5 hours a day \u201cotherwise and but not the worker
\nto be in favor of a period arrangement between the parties can be made, such as) milk permit issue
\n74\/7 of the Labor Law No. 4857, which is not an initiative of the employer. under the clause, this is
\nthe worker shall determine the time between the hours and the amount of time to be used.
\nif the worker is required to use a milk permit but is not allowed to use it,
\ndetermination of non-kulland\u0131r\u0131lmadan time and calculation of 50% increased fee
\nthe adoption is 50\/2 of the Constitution. 4857 by adopting article and objective interpretation
\nit was decided to overturn the provision on the grounds that it would be more appropriate to the spirit of the numbered law\u201d.
\nIn the concrete dispute, the claimant cannot use the milk permit for a period of time determined and charged a 50% increase.
\nwhen the calculation should have been made, the rejection of the request by written justification was without a hit and required the distortion.
\nResult:
\nIf the decision of Appeal is overturned due to the reasons stated above,
\nupon request, a unanimous decision was made on 25\/09\/2017.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Supreme Court 22. Legal Department Principal No: 2015\/16933 Decision No: 2017\/19050 Decision Date: 25.09.2017 The Decision Of The Supreme Court Tribunal:Employment Tribunal CASE TYPE: RECEIVABLE Attorney of the plaintiff to review the decision made as a result of the case between the parties asked…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,305,247],"yoast_head":"\n