If a Milk Permit Is Used for a Woman Worker Giving Birth, the Milk Permit Fee May Be Requested to be Increased

T.C. SUPREME COURT 22. Legal Department Main Number: 2015/16933
Decision No:2017/19050

Decision Date: 25.09.2017
Supreme Court Decision
COURT: Labor Court
CASE TYPE: RECEIVABLE
It was understood that the decision made as a result of the case between the parties was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney to be examined on appeal, and that the appeal request was in Dec. After the report prepared by the Examination Judge for the case file was heard, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

SUPREME COURT DECISION:

Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
Attorney for plaintiff; the defendant’s branch in the workplace working as a sales manager, your client, business hours 09:00-18:00, although it is 08:00-08:30 come to workplace to 20:30 and worked late hours, overtime work is paid for, whether or also during his period of birth, milk for the permission of the employer 12:30-13:30, despite the lunch hour, 12:00-14:30, it was determined that 3 or 4 times due to corporate meetings and appointments outside the customer permission to use Dairy Milk work by specifying whether the defendant from further collection costs and the decision to be given to the permit fee requested.
Summary of the Defendant’s Defense:
The defendant’s attorney; that the plaintiff works with a salary plus a bonus, that overwork is included in his salary, that he uses 9 months of milk leave except for 3 months of maternity leave, that there is no regulation that his salary will be paid if he is not allowed to use it, therefore, he requested the dismissal of the case.
Summary of the Court Decision:
The court itself is determined by the plaintiff’s working hours 270 hours and more work should be recognized is limited to the cost of the plaintiff’s salary + bonus structure, according to his work and the results of his work, according to variable premiums received from the employer, in excess of 270 hours of work that it is doing to the file not being able to identify any document or statement that is reflected, also a plaintiff workers ‘ milk with the statement that can’t consent to this fee, if requested, is still in the Supreme Court 9. Law
Date of the apartment 01/02/2012,
according to the decision numbered 2010/33549-2012/2569 main decision, there is no rule in the labor law that an additional fee will be paid to the employee if the milk permit is not granted, the sanction of which is 104 of the Labor Law. on the grounds that it is included in the article and that the issue of imposing a fine on the employer is regulated, therefore, even if the plaintiff has not been granted a milk permit, he will not be able to charge a fee in response to the case.
his refusal has been decided.
Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Reason:
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legally necessary reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not in place. 2-There is a dispute between the parties on the point of whether the Decedent is entitled to receive a milk permit. 74/7 of the Labor Law No. 4857. in its article“ “Women workers are allowed a total of one and a half hours of milk a day to breastfeed their children under the age of one. The worker determines Decisively between which hours and by how many this time will be used. This period is counted from the daily working time.” there is an arrangement in the form. 104 of the law No. 4857. in the article, the regulation that a fine will be applied if the employer acts contrary to the provision of this article regarding the regulation of work has also been introduced, and the use of a milk permit has been secured by linking it to an administrative sanction.
From our previous opinion regarding the milk permit, our Department decided on 13.06.2016 tr 2015/12878 Esas 2016/17527 Decision numbered ”69/3 of the Labor Law numbered 4857. in the paragraph “Night work of workers cannot exceed seven and a half hours, according to the provision, there is no legal regulation that night work will be paid over the increased wage, however, this situation has been clarified by the established case law of our apartment and it has been accepted that the overtime work done at night should be paid over the increased wage. It has been assessed that a similar comment on the milk permit is more appropriate for fairness and … and the purpose of the legislator.
In the mentioned decision, just like; “In accordance with the law, women workers are allowed to breastfeed their children for 1.5 hours a day (otherwise, but in favor of the employee, as well as time can be arranged between the parties) milk permission is not a situation that is at the initiative of the employer, but 74/7 of the Labor Law No. 4857. Dec. in accordance with paragraph 50 of the Constitution, it is stipulated that the employee will determine between which hours and divided by how much this period will be used, and if the employee should use a milk permit, but this permission is not granted, it is accepted that the calculation should be made on the basis of a 50% increase in wages by determining the unused period Dec. 50/2 of the Constitution. it was decided to overturn the provision on the grounds that it would be more in line with the spirit of the law No. 4857 by adopting its article and purposeful interpretation.”
In the concrete dispute, the period during which the plaintiff could not use the milk permit should be determined and a calculation should be made based on a 50% increased fee, while the rejection of the request with a written justification was unjustified and required a violation.
Result:
It was decided unanimously on the day of 25/09/2017 to OVERTURN the appealed decision for the reasons written above, to return the appeal fee received in advance to the relevant person upon request.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.