Prompt Collection of Labor Receivables – Termination of Employment Contract Supreme Court Decision

T.C.
SUPREME
9. law office
E. 2017/6457
K. 2018/8931
T. 17.4.2018

* Prompt the collection of receivables labor ( employment was terminated for good cause by the employer between the parties in dispute is whether or not defendant – the defendant from the witness accounts, Even the cost of the product given by the customer not making sales in the same chassis as a witness by the plaintiff and received by the employee whose means are reported, although it is understood that the defendant employer’s right doesn’t concretely prove the cause of the termination/severance compensation claims is inappropriate denial of the acceptance of the plaintiff instead )

* Termination of employment ( employment contract of sale of the plaintiff’s product price in dollars made by tampering it was sold, and the difference was terminated on the grounds that the plaintiff remained in the seven – Defendant from the witness accounts, Even the cost of the product given by the customer not making sales in the same chassis as a witness by the plaintiff and received by the employee whose means are reported, although it is understood that/the cause of the termination of the defendant’s right of the employer doesn’t prove concretely )

* EQUAL TRANSACTION DEBT (It Is Understood That the Plaintiff Does Not Have Information from the Sale and the Issued Receipt, and the Cashier Was Dismissed Due to the Same Incident, But Was Hired Again the Next Day – It Is Not Decently Proven that the Plaintiff Committed Falsification and Received the Difference in the Sale of Products, and The Other Employee Who Received the Original Price from the Customer Was Hired Again and Acted Contrary to the Equal Transaction Debt)

4857/m.25

SUMMARY: The case is related to the request for the collection of labor receivables.

It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employment contract has been terminated Decisively by the defendant employer.

The plaintiff’s employment contract has been terminated on the grounds that the product price, the sale of which was made in dollars and given to the customer for $ 2300, was falsified and sold for $ 2000, and the difference between which remains with the plaintiff Dec. However, even from the defendant’s witness statements, the product price given by the customer is 2300 dollars, not by the plaintiff, but by T, who sells at the same checkout and is not listened to despite being reported as a witness. it was taken by the named employee, the plaintiff did not have information about the sale and the issued receipt, due to the same incident, cashier T.it is understood that nin was dismissed, but was hired again the next day. It is not Decently proven that the plaintiff committed falsification and obtained the difference between the sale of the product, as well as the other employee who received the actual price from the customer, T.it is understood that by being hired again, the equal transaction debt was also violated.

The defendant employer could not concretely prove the rightful reason for termination, and the refusal of the plaintiff’s severance and notice compensation claims instead of acceptance is unjustified.

LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that a decision be made to pay severance pay, notice compensation, malice compensation, moral compensation, overtime pay, national holiday and general holiday pay receivables.

The local court has decided to partially accept the case.

Although the parties were appealed by their lawyers during the sentencing period, the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

DECISION: A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:

06.06.2012 safe on the plaintiff’s attorney in the district of the plaintiff’s workplace as a principal of the defendant’s start with the end in the belt, then side-Manavgat works as the insured in the defendant in the workplace, the net charges a monthly fee of TL 1100,00, six days a week at 13:00-02:00 working with shift, religious and public holidays also works this way, and uses it to allow one day a week, overtime fees, whether they are citing the seniority of employment by an employer’s unfair compensation was dissolved, national holidays and public holidays wage, for overtime work fee, he demanded compensation for malice and moral compensation.

B-) Summary of the Defendant’s Response:

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was justified, procedural and in accordance with the law, that his salary was the amount that appeared on the payroll, that his work performed on general holidays, religious and public holidays was reflected in the payroll and paid to him, and that he did not work overtime.

C-) Summary of the Local Court Decision:

Based on the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the claimant’s termination of the employment contract was justified, that he had no right to claim moral compensation and compensation for malice due to the right of termination, that he could not prove that he worked on national holidays and public holidays, that he worked overtime, and that it was proved by witness statements.

D-) Appeal:

The parties appealed the decision.

E-) Justification:

1-) According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, all the appeals of the defendant and the plaintiff, which are outside the scope of the following subparagraph, are not in place.

2-) It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether the employment contract has been terminated Decisively by the defendant employer.

In the concrete case, the plaintiff’s employment contract sale was terminated on the grounds that the product price made in dollars and given to the customer for $ 2300 was falsified and sold for $ 2000, and the difference remained with the plaintiff Dec. However, even from the defendant’s witness statements, the product price given by the customer is 2300 dollars, not by the plaintiff, but by T, who sells at the same checkout and is not listened to despite being reported as a witness. it was received by a worker named 17.04.2018, the plaintiff does not have information about the sale and the issued receipt, due to the same incident, cashier T.it is understood that nin was dismissed, but was hired again the next day. It is not Decently proven that the plaintiff committed falsification and obtained the difference between the sale of the product, as well as the other employee who received the actual price from the customer, T.it is understood that by being hired again, the equal transaction debt was also violated.

The defendant employer could not concretely prove the reason for the justified termination.For these reasons, the claimant’s rejection of the severance and notice compensation claims instead of acceptance was erroneous and required a violation.

CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 17.04.2018 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the relevant person if requested.

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