T.C. SUPREME
\n9. Legal Department Principal No: 2018\/6134
\nDecision No: 2018\/14964
\nDecision Date: 09.07.2018
\nTHE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n
TRIBUNAL:EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
\nCASE TYPE: RECEIVABLE
\nExamination of the decision made as a result of the case between the parties, from the defendants on appeal \u2026
\nTourism Stone. Auto. Food Ur. Clean. Speed. Ileti\u015fim San. .Ve D\u0131\u015f Tic. Co.Requested by the deputy of \u015eti,
\nit is understood that appeals are pending. Arranged by the examining magistrate for the case file
\nafter listening to the report, the file was examined and considered as necessary.:
\nTHE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
\nA) summary of the plaintiff request:
\nActing claimant, employee and rights of defendant employer between 15\/11\/2007-25\/07\/2011
\nSunday every Saturday that the claimant who justifiably terminated the employment contract due to non-payment is working,
\nseverance pay, annual leave fee, overtime, claiming that some labor receivables have not been paid
\npay, Week break fee, minimum subsistence allowance, notice distribution fee and penalty deduction
\nhe must have wanted to.
\nB) summary of Respondent’s response:
\nThe defendant igda\u015f deputy said that no animosity could be directed at his client and that he would receive the work on Sunday.
\narguing that acceptance by his client is not possible and that the claims and demands are unwarranted
\nhe asked for a dismissal.
\nDefendant … the attorney of the company, the plaintiff who works with the term work contract, ends the tender between his client and Igda\u015f
\nhe said he had released his client upon his termination, that the plaintiff had been shown other work, but that the plaintiff had done Igda\u015f’s work.
\nhe said he had started work at another company that did, he had no work on Sunday, and claims and demands were unwarranted
\nhe asked for a dismissal, arguing that it was.
\nThe other defendants did not respond to the lawsuit.
\nC) summary of the decision of the Local Court: according to the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the plaintiff’s workplace personal and insurance registry
\nfrom the examination of the records; the defendant between 15\/11\/2007 and 25\/04\/2008 … construction
\nAt 25\/04\/2008-09\/06\/2008 at non-litigation … construction company, 17\/07\/2008-
\nBetween 13\/08\/2009 at the defendant … Limited Company, between 01\/09\/2009-12\/09\/2010
\nat defendant…, between 07\/09\/2010-31\/2011 at defendant … 01\/06\/2011-
\nDefendant between 20\/06\/2011 and 21\/06\/2011 and 18\/08\/2011 at the defendant … \u2026
\nNotice of termination of employment contract at the company of the last employer, or
\nsystem distribution, which is the new firm in the record of the claimant by this company, without any documentation
\n25\/07\/2011, the claimant is found to have passed his services to the company … his registration has been terminated
\nas of date, he has terminated his employment contract due to non-payment of wages and other legal rights.
\nthe claimant’s claim is that the date of the start of work in the new company is 13\/08\/2011, the plaintiff heard
\nhis witnesses confirmed the plaintiff’s claim, that the plaintiff was not able to get their money because he was fired
\nthey reported that he had left, payments were delayed by about 1 month, and that the plaintiff had taken Igda\u015f’s meter reading job
\nthe defendant’s witnesses, who listened to reports that he had done, said that the plaintiff had been fired because he had found work in Iski.
\nhe stated that he was leaving, as well as both parties witness the plaintiff’s fee and the excess work he did and the week
\nthe expert report dated 22\/05\/2014 stated that he had made detailed statements on the work of the holiday
\nwhere detailed calculation is made, by the court according to the scope of the entire file, the plaintiff is asked by the defendants
\nThe service purchase agreement concluded Regarding the job of reading the counters of igda\u015f and the job of reading the counters
\nthe principal employer of Igda\u015f, which the respondent gives to the subcontractors, is the sub-employer of these companies.
\nthat is, contracts with sub-employers vary by tender according to the nature of the work done
\ntermination of work of subcontractors where there is an indefinite term employment contract taking into account the following
\nas the claimant’s job is terminated, but in reality the job of the principal employer is continuous, continuing,
\nother subcontractors, the work continued uninterrupted, the claimant in the last subcontractor company
\nhis contract also expired on 25\/07\/2011 due to non-payment of his fee, the claimant was told that a
\nkayden claims he was fired because he started working at another company
\nThe claimant as of 25\/07\/2011 has no legal value since it started on 13\/08\/2011
\nthe termination should be assessed, according to the expert report it is fixed that their fees have not been paid,
\ntermination of the claimant’s contract of employment based on this reason is justified by Article 24\/II-e of Law No. 4857,
\nseniority of the claimant to which the claimant will deserve severance, as much as the amount calculated by the expert witness to the claimant
\nthat his compensation should be awarded, as calculated in the expert’s report of the plaintiff’s excess … ,
\nthe defendant’s employer that he worked during the Week holidays, paid the plaintiff’s overtime pay and the week vacation fee
\nlong-term calculation, which cannot be proved by payroll or equivalent document
\n30% Fair discount on the amount of the week vacation … and the amount stated to have been done
\nand the week’s holiday fee should be given to the claimant,
\nthe amount calculated that the right of Leave has been exercised or that the monetary provision has been paid after termination
\nwith the paid leave book or equivalent document signed by the defendant who is on the burden of proof
\nit could not be proven.<\/p>\n
This request should also be given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s minimum livelihood allowance
\nthe claimant’s distribution of notices and other fees, since the claim could not be proved
\nthe principal employer is the defendant.
\nLaw No. 4857 of igdas 2\/6. the last employer is responsible for all receivables in accordance with the clause
\nin terms of severance pay, other defendants will have limited liability in the amount calculated in the expert’s report in terms of the duration of their employment, because they will take more … and week breaks … the calculation is made in terms of the duration of their company’s employment … the company is responsible with Igda\u015f for the notification and permission.
\nwhere the employer will be jointly responsible, the objection to the animosity is in place since the defendant Igda\u015f is the principal employer
\nthe defendant Igda\u015f in terms of liability in service purchase contracts and administrative specifications.
\nthis Agreement shall be binding only on the parties, even if it transfers responsibility to the companies in which it serves.,
\nconcluding that there would be internal affairs, which could not eliminate the rights of the plaintiff arising from the law
\nJudgment No. 2014\/269 of 02\/10\/2014 was issued, and the defendant of this decision …\u015e., … Turzim
\nTransportation Automotive Food Products Are Clean. Speed. Communication industry and Foreign Trade Ltd. Ltd. Regents
\n9 of the Supreme Court on appeal. By Decision No. 2014\/37749 dated 15\/03\/2016 of the Legal Department
\nincomplete review and inspection as to whether the claimant is entitled to the week break fee
\n15 from meter reading records in terms of duration of service, where provision is made according to unfavorable report-
\nAround 20 days … there are visible months, these periods are not evaluated, why premiums are Month by month
\nthat the documents of incomplete payment were corrupted on the grounds that they were not brought, and that the notice of impairment was complied with,
\nafter the breakdown, the acting plaintiff repeated his previous claims, the acting defendant … his previous defences,
\ndocuments showing why the premiums specified in the notice of impairment are paid month by month, meter reading,
\nSupreme Court with opening, closing records 9. Together with the court file by the legal department
\nupon notification of the files of similar nature examined, these files were also brought,
\nthe documents and the whole file were evaluated and the additional report dated 16\/04\/2017 was taken, the report was brought
\nconsidering that there is a difference between the documents and the subpoenaed service schedule,
\nthere is no need for a change in the length of service in the report, only the week’s holiday fee
\ncalculation should be done in terms of the cost of the week holiday as calculation
\nThe report dated 10\/10\/2017 was received from the same expert on the objection to this report, which determined TL 332.56,
\nthe expert’s report stated that objections were not in place and that no changes could be made to the report.,
\nthis report is deemed worthy of acceptance by the court, the plaintiff’s counters from the defendants Igda\u015f
\nthe respondent subcontractor of the counter reading contract and the service purchase contract concluded in relation to the reading job
\ngiven to companies, that these companies are sub-employers, Igda\u015f is the principal employer,
\nsub-employers vary by tender according to the nature of the work, but contracts follow each other
\nconsidering that there is an indefinite term employment contract, the work of the plaintiff as the end of the work of the subcontractors
\ntermination of the job of the actual employer is continuous, continued, other subcontractors to companies
\nthe fee of the claimant’s contract at the last subcontractor company, which was commissioned, the work continued uninterrupted
\ntermination on 25\/07\/2011 due to non-payment, claimant to work in another company
\nhe claimed to have been dismissed for his work at the other company, kayden on 13\/08\/2011
\nthe termination of the claimant as of 25\/07\/2011 has no legal value since it started
\nit is fixed that they should be assessed, that their fees are not paid according to the expert report,
\ntermination of the claimant’s employment contract based on this reason is justified by clause 24\/II-e of Law No. 4857,
\nseniority of the claimant to which the claimant will deserve severance, as much as the amount calculated by the expert witness to the claimant
\nthat his compensation should be awarded, as calculated in the expert’s report of the plaintiff’s excess … ,
\npayroll or equivalent value of the plaintiff’s overtime pay by the defendant’s employer
\nbut it could not be proven because the calculation is done with the document specified the amount that you will receive a long-term … more
\nthe defendant, who is on the burden of proof that the right of Leave has been exercised, or that the monetary provision has been paid after termination, cannot be proved with a paid leave book or equivalent document bearing his signature; this demand should also be given to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff will receive a minimum livelihood allowance.
\nbecause it cannot be proven, the claimant has been handed out notice and has been cut off from other charges
\nas the matter cannot be proved, it is necessary to reject these demands, the principal employer is the defendant Igda\u015f No. 4857
\n2\/6 of the act. notice and leave of the last employer, for which he is responsible for all receivables in accordance with the clause
\nthe defendant is responsible for the receivables together with Igda\u015f and the other defendants in terms of severance pay
\nthe amount calculated in the expert’s report will be limited liability in respect of the time they are employed,
\nit’s too much … and it’ll take a week off … so you can calculate the amount of time your company is running. \u2026
\nanimosity that the company and the principal employer will be responsible together, since the defendant Igda\u015f is the principal employer
\nliability in service purchase contracts and administrative specifications, where the objection is not in place
\nalthough the respondent has transferred the responsibility of Igda\u015f to the companies in which it serves, this contract is not valid.
\neliminate the rights of the plaintiff arising from the law, that it will only bind the parties, that it will have internal affairs
\nissued after the provision of research and documents specified in the Supreme Court decree
\naccording to the final expert report, there was no change in the period of service in the previous decision; and
\nby excluding the distortions of the previous decision of our court in terms of merit and liability
\nsince it’s been finalized, the severance pay, the excess …
\nit is necessary to repeat the same provision established in terms of, but the claimant will receive a week holiday fee
\nSunday work as requested and expert in the court of Appeals to disrupt these studies as stated in the decree
\nsince the calculation is made and the calculation is based on witness statements, the expert has calculated
\nmore … 30% appreciation discount on the fee of the weekend … 232.79 TL Sunday of the demand
\nsince it is a work, it is necessary for the plaintiff to be charged as a Sunday fee.
\nin respect of the other requests rejected in the previous decision, the previous provision shall be excluded from the annulment
\nto the conclusion that the rejected demands of the previous decision must be repeated in the same way.
\nseniority tazmiant, overtime pay, Sunday work fee, leave fee
\nit is decided that their demands will be accepted and other demands will be rejected.
\nD) Appeal:
\nWithin the time of the verdict, the defendant has been appealed by the attorney of his company.<\/p>\n
E)Citing:
\n1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant \u2026
\nThe company’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following clauses are not in place.
\n2-in the concrete dispute \u201cthe first decision of the court with our department’s Decree No. 2014\/37749 ” decision
\nwithin the period the defendant … has been appealed by the attorney of the company and the attorney of the defendant … 1-in the file
\naccording to the articles, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the verdict is based, the defendants … gas
\nDistribution A.P. and…, tourism, transport, automotive, food products, cleaning services, communications, industry and Foreign Trade Ltd.the appeals that fall outside the scope of the following clauses are not in place. 2-the matter of whether the plaintiff worker is entitled to the week break wage is a matter of dispute between the parties…. If Sunday Sunday is calculated according to the meter reading records of…, in the case of concrete discrepancy, the use of the week holiday on the Sunday
\nas there is no obligation, the week holiday fee calculated under the name of Sunday
\nwhether it is calculated for continuous 7-day studies or for 7-day periods
\nis it calculated for periods of non-stop 24 hours rest just because it is worked on Sunday?
\nit has to be clearly revealed in the expert’s report. This is the case in the report of the main expert.
\nsince there is no clarity and the expert report is not conducive to the audit with this aspect, this expert report shall be submitted to
\nestablishing provision on the basis is erroneous. The work to be done by the court is to be supervised in the specified matter
\nit is convenient to go to the conclusion by getting an expert report. 3-in terms of the claimant’s service period, meter reading
\nthere are months in his records … that appear to be around 15-20 days. In the service casting ruler, premiums are first
\nexcept for a few months, it was generally paid on days such as 17, 18, 20 days.The prosecution witness said, ” Normally 16
\nSaturday and Sunday between these days … we were working for 21 days as a matter of fact.
\n9 days a month was also working, but these days at least two or three days in the opposite Best
\nwe would go to the other business of the group, ” he declared. Court
\nadmission by the claimant that he also worked for non-premium days in the service casting ruler
\njudgment was established. The plaintiff’s record should be evaluated … for the duration of his service. But
\nwhile this assessment is carried out, the following points should be paid particular attention; by our department on the same day
\nin some of the files of similar nature examined together, the meter read-on-off records
\nin his examination, it was found that his days on these works were not the same on all lists.
\nFor example, on the day the worker’s work did not appear in the casting for reading records, close
\nhis records show the work of the worker. Therefore, counter reading records, counter opening records,
\ncounter closing records, notice distribution records should all be brought separately, in one of these records
\nor on days when the plaintiff does not appear to work in a few of them, where the plaintiff appears to work in other records.
\nit should be examined that it does not appear. … documents showing why premiums are being paid month by month
\nhe should be subpoenaed. Witnesses should be heard again if necessary. This review will be conducted and
\naccording to the research, whether there will be changes in the length of Service accepted by the plaintiff
\nconclusion should be reached, if there is a change in the agreed period of service, all receivables shall be subject to
\nit should be considered that it may be affected.”corrupted by reason.
\nThe calculation of the week holiday receivables made after the breakdown and taken as the basis of the decision
\nit is understood to be appropriate.
\nHowever, in terms of length of service, the plaintiff’s attorney did not make a statement after the breakdown, similar
\nhe has not put forward any new evidence other than the files. Therefore, time of service based on calculations
\nonly available in the file is the service breakdown chart, other … records and counter reading sent by the defendant
\nit should be done according to the days in which the plaintiff was found to be working in the records, the outcome of which will be the case
\nthe impact on subject receivables should also be addressed separately.
\nF)RESULT:
\nAn appeal against the annulment of the appealed decision due to the reasons stated above,
\nit was unanimously decided on 09\/07\/2018 to return the fee to the relevant person upon request.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 9. Legal Department Principal No: 2018\/6134 Decision No: 2018\/14964 Decision Date: 09.07.2018 THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT TRIBUNAL:EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE TYPE: RECEIVABLE Examination of the decision made as a result of the case between the parties, from the defendants on appeal \u2026…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,528],"yoast_head":"\n