Supreme Court Decision That Employees in the Same Workplace Should Make Testimonies to Each Other

T.C.
SUPREME
9. law office
E. 2015/20572
K. 2018/1190
T. 24.1.2018

* LABOR RECEIVABLES ( the prosecutor, the witness Witness to each other they are, and witness statements was made on the basis of the calculations it is understood/and people who claim to be working together in the same office for the same reason, and the union cannot be considered directly as they are in the witness statements of interest – that can’t be proved in the absence of other evidence the plaintiff overtime and public holidays national holidays and fee receivables receivables attached to the denial of severance by the difference in food costs )

* EMPLOYEES TESTIFYING TO EACH OTHER AT THE SAME WORKPLACE (For the Same Reason, They Are People Claiming Rights And Are Directly in the Union of Interests, So Their Testimony Statements Cannot Be Credited – No Other Evidence Has Been Presented, So the Plaintiff Will Receive an Unprovable Overtime, a National Holiday and a General Holiday Wage Meal Wage Difference, And Severance Pay Related to These Receivables Will Be Refused)

* THE WITNESS IS IN A DIRECT BENEFIT UNION WITH THE PLAINTIFF (People Who Work Together at the Same Workplace and Claim Rights for the Same Reason, and Since They Are Directly in a Benefit Union, Testimony Statements Cannot Be Credited – Since No Other Evidence Has Been Presented, The Plaintiff Will Receive Unprovable Overtime, National Holidays and General Holiday Wages, Meal Pay Differences, and Severance Pay Due to These Receivables)

6100/m.255

SUMMARY: The plaintiff claimed that he worked as a driver and that a warning was sent to the defendant due to the non-payment of the plaintiff’s labor receivables, and requested the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, weekly vacation pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, and the balance meal fee from the defendant. The plaintiff has proved the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay receivables, which he stated based on justified termination, with the witness. In the case files that were reviewed on the same day, it was understood that the plaintiffs witnessed each other and that the calculations were made on the basis of witness statements. Plaintiffs are people who work together at the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason, and they are directly in the benefit union. For this reason, testimony statements cannot be respected. No other evidence has been presented. For this reason, the claimant’s unprovable overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal wage difference receivables and severance pay related to these receivables should be rejected.

LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that it be decided to pay the severance pay and overtime pay, weekly vacation pay, annual leave pay, balance meal pay, national holiday and general holiday pay.

The local court has decided to partially accept the case.

Even if the defendant has been appealed by his lawyer during the trial period; HUMK.nun 438.after the decision was made to reject the hearing request from the amount in accordance with the article and to conduct the examination on the documents, the report prepared by the Examination Judge was submitted, the file was examined, and the necessary conversation was considered:

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

The plaintiff claimed that he worked as a driver and that a notice was sent to the defendant due to the non-payment of the plaintiff’s labor receivables, and requested the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, weekly vacation pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, annual paid leave, and the balance meal fee from the defendant.

B-) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:

The defendant requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to absenteeism.

C-) Summary of the Local Court Decision and the Trial Process:

Based on the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case.

D-) Appeal:

The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.

E-) Justification:

The plaintiff claimed that the employee terminated his employment contract rightfully because his receivables were not paid, and requested overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay, week off, meal difference and severance pay as a result of them.

The defendant employer made a defense of absenteeism.

The court rejected the claimant’s request for overtime, national holidays and general holidays, and the provision that they will receive severance pay as a result of them, and that they will receive annual paid leave.

The plaintiff has proved the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and general holiday pay receivables, which he stated based on justified termination, with the witness. In the case files that were reviewed on the same day, the plaintiffs witnessed each other (2015/4898 E., 2015/34583 e., 36420 E.,) and it was understood that the calculations were made based on witness statements.

Plaintiffs are people who work together at the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason, and they are directly in the benefit union. For this reason, testimony statements cannot be respected. No other evidence has been presented. For this reason, while the claimant’s unprovable overtime, national holiday and general holiday wages, meal wage difference receivables and severance pay related to these receivables should be rejected, the decision made in writing was erroneous and required to be overturned.

CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 24.01.2018 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED for the reason written above and that 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.