The Labor Service Determination Case File Is Strong Evidence and Does Not Constitute Definitive Evidence Supreme Court Decision

T.C
SUPREME
21. law office
MAIN NUMBER:2016/19742
DECISION NO:2018/2740
DECISION DATE: 22.03.2018
COURT : Labor Court

> LABOR SERVICE DETERMINATION CASE, THE CASE FILE THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE LABOR IN TERMS OF SERVICE DETERMINATION REQUEST IS IN THE NATURE OF STRONG EVIDENCE AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE.

The plaintiff requested that a decision be made on the determination of the work carried out between Dec. 08/02/2007-13/01/2009 at the workplace belonging to the defendant employer.
The court has decided to accept the request as stated in its decision.Upon the appeal of the verdict by the defendant’s attorney, after it was understood that the appeal request was in due course, the papers in the file were read with the edited report, the necessity of the work was considered and the following decision was made.

decision

The case is related to the claimant’s request to determine that he worked at the defendant’s workplace continuously between Dec. 08.02.2007 and Dec.13.01.2009.

The court has decided to accept the case.

The dispute is collected at the point of whether the claimant’s request for service determination has been proven by the method.

79/10 of the Law No. 506, which constitutes the legal basis of the case. and 86/9 of the Law No. 5510. although the articles do not provide for a special method of proof for this type of service determination cases, the nature of the case is that it concerns public order and therefore with special sensitivity and care
that it should be carried out is according to the settled case law of the Supreme Court and increasingly of our Department. In such cases, first of all, it should be investigated by the method whether the documents related to the plaintiff’s work have been provided by the employer. If this condition has occurred, it should be completely determined whether the workplace really exists within the scope of the law or whether it is of a nature to be covered, then the existence of the work phenomenon should be investigated with special sensitivity.

The study of the phenomenon can be proven with any evidence, but the subject of her work, Nature, start and end dates of the words matters, the witness should be evaluated, and listened to the witnesses by the plaintiff worked in the same period at work and the employer payroll or neighboring the official record of the witnesses from past employees, employers engaged in official records and payrolls of the same nature work it should be selected. The fact of working with the statements of these witnesses should be determined in such a way that there is no room for doubt and hesitation. 16.9.1999 Day of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation on Law 1999/21-510-527 , 30.6.1999 day 1999/21-549-555- 3.11.2004 the decisions of the day 2004/21- 480-579 are also in this direction.
The case file to which they will receive labor in terms of service determination prompt is in the nature of strong evidence and is not in the nature of conclusive evidence.

In the concrete case; It is understood that the conclusion was reached by the Court on the basis of the documents and records contained in the case file to which the labor will be received, and accordingly, it was wrong to reach the conclusion in writing without considering that the finalized labor order cannot be the basis in the service determination case alone. The work to be done, the defendant is a matter of dispute in the place of business of the insured last name by selecting the payroll period ex officio as witnesses refer to these statements, if we are not content with the statements of witnesses, or in the event the address is not reached, Social Security Administration, tax administration, municipal and public agencies such as the police department will be identified through the employer or the employer of the workplace neighboring employees refer to the statements of the official records of the past, it consists of evaluating all the evidence collected together by expanding the investigation and considering whether the case has undergone a reduction period and making a decision by the Court according to its result, considering that the case is inherently related to public order.

The establishment of a written judgment by the court with incomplete examination and research without taking into account these material and legal facts is contrary to the procedure and the law and is the reason for violation. Then, the appeals of the defendant’s workplace aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the verdict
it must be broken.

CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on the day of 22.03.2018 to OVERTURN the judgment for the reasons described above and to return the appeal fee to the defendant upon request.

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