Under What Conditions is the Equittance Signed by the Employee when Leaving Work Valid? Can a Worker Who Signed an Equittance But Did Not Receive His Rights Sue? Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME

9.law office
Basis: 2015/7967
Verdict: 2017/2059
Decision Date: 16.02.2017

EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES CASE – THE RELEASE AGREEMENT HAS THE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNATURE – THE SIGNATURE IS NOT DENIED BY THE PLAINTIFF – THE WILL-CRIPPLING SITUATIONS ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE CONCRETE CASE – DUE TO THE REJECTION OF THE CASE IN TERMS OF THE RECEIVABLES CONTAINED IN THE RELEASE AGREEMENT

Summary: File offered by the defendant, the plaintiff is required and authenticated by the signature of the signature of the plaintiff are not in denial, fraud, threat and which cannot be proved by the plaintiff through ikrah sign that more work Fee Fee Fee receivables in terms of general holiday and weekend do not conflict with the defense of the defendant where, after the termination of an employment contract signed and for all these reasons, the current release agreement (disclaimer) more work, public holidays and the decision must be given of the denial of claims for the cost of a vacation week.

(6098 Pp. K. m. 132, 420) (818 P. K. m. 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) (4857 P. K. m. 19) (YHGK. 21.10.2009 t. 2009/9-396 E. 2009/441 K.) (Y HGK. 27.01.2010 t. 2009/9-586 E. 2010/31 K.) (9. HD. 15.10.2010 t. E. 2008/41165 2010/29240 K.) (9. HD. 05.11.2010 t. E. 2008/37441 2010/31943 K.) (9. HD. 26.10.2010 t. E. 2009/27121 2010/30468 K.) (9. HD. 04.11.2010 t. 2008/37372 E. 2010/31566 K.) (9. HD. 24.06.2010 t. 2008/33748 E. 2010/20389 K.) (9. HD. 27.06.2008 t. E. 2007/23861 2008/17735 K.) (9. HD. 24.06.2010 t. 2008/33507 E. 2010/20380 K.)

Lawsuit: The plaintiff has requested that it be decided to pay severance pay, notice compensation and overtime pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, week holiday pay and leave pay.

The local court has decided to partially accept the case.

Although the defendant was appealed by his lawyer during the sentencing period, the report prepared by the Examination Judge for the case file was examined after the hearing, the file was discussed and considered as necessary:

A) Summary of the Claimant’s Claim:

The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that his client worked as an assistant on public buses belonging to the defendant between 15.04.1999-16.04.2006, and that the employment contract was terminated unfairly by the employer, and requested the Decommissioning and notification compensation, overtime pay, general vacation pay, week-long vacation pay and annual leave pay to be collected from the defendant.

B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:

The defendant’s counsel, that does not reflect the truth of plaintiff’s allegations, the plaintiff’s 25.06.2001-31.05.2004 dates between client working for the company after that date the absence of the work, that has been released on 31.05.2004 his client, despite the acquittal, and proposed that it be unfair to ascribe false statements and claims paid claims, arguing that it is without legal basis, has asked for a dismissal.

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 defendant was unfair in terminating the employment contract.

D) Appeal:

The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.

E) Justification:

1- According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legally necessary reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that are outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.

2- There is a dispute between the parties about the validity of the Deciphered Hebrew.

In Turkish Law, the ibra agreement is regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, which entered into force on 07.01.2012, and Article 132 of the adopted Law states that “Even if the transaction that gives rise to the debt is legally or by the parties tied to a certain form, the debt can be completely or partially eliminated by the ibra agreement that the parties will make regardless of the form”.

Termination of the debt in the business relationship through ibra is stipulated in Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098.

According to the aforementioned provision,

the written release agreement that the employee will receive from the employer,
as of the date of release, at least one month has elapsed since the termination of the contract,
clearly stating the type and amount of the IBRA receivable,
the payment must be paid without any deficiency compared to the right amount and through the bank. Ibra contracts or ibraname that do not carry these elements are definitely invalid. Release agreements that do not contain that the right has been paid in the actual amount or other pay documents that contain the release statement are limited to the amount they contain and are subject to receipt. Even in this case, payments must be made through the bank.
In Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, it is stated that release agreements concluded within one month of the termination of the employment contract will not be valid. In the same article, it is stipulated that release agreements (paid release) conditional on paying a part of the receivable will only be valid if the payment is made through the bank channel. Article 19 of the Labor Law No. 4857 provides for a one-month right reduction period in terms of objection to termination, but the employee has the right to file a case for reinstatement within one month following termination. At this point, the one-month period following the termination is important in terms of determining whether the employee will return to his/her former job. In that case, it is also necessary to reduce the possible pressures of the employer in the one-month period following the termination in order to ensure job security. Even in terminations based on valid and justifiable claims, a one-month period should be expected following the termination in order for the Hebrew to be issued. Although the one-month waiting period means that the payment of some labor payables of the employee is delayed for a month in terms of partial release, it is basically a situation that benefits the employee. Let us immediately state that the one-month waiting period is related to the time of issuance of release agreements and is not a situation that concerns performance. In other words, the date of payment of the rights of the employee such as severance pay, notification compensation and leave pay, which become due with the termination, is not postponed for one month.

In the mentioned article of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, the introduction of the obligation for payments to be made by the employer to be made through the bank is effective at the point of validity of the Hebrew. However, in the case of payments made by non-bank means, the debt is terminated through full or partial performance instead of discharge.

The mentioned legal act provides for restrictions on the benefit of the employee only for cases when the employee is a creditor. Expenses for training of workers on the employer penalty and compensation for damage in the applications requested again and even in cases where the worker is owed to the employer under the provisions of unjust enrichment, the parties, without any restriction, workers discharge their debts through may terminate.

The provisions of the second and third paragraphs of the mentioned article are applied in terms of all rights arising from the service contract, including compensation and receivables that may be requested by those who are deprived of support and other relatives of the employee.

The existence of legal conditions should be sought for release agreements issued after the date of 01.07.2012, when the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 entered into force. However, the issue of the validity of the Hebrew signed during the period when the Code of Obligations No. 6098 was not in force should be evaluated within the framework of the principles of our Department on the subject. The arrangement of the release within a one-month period following the termination and the fact that the payments were not made through the bank channel does not result in invalidity for release agreements issued before 01.07.2012.

The issue of invalidity between the employee and the employer in terms of release agreements concluded prior to the entry into force of the Turkish Code of Obligations in order to Decommission the employer’s debts should be evaluated within the following principles:

a) Within the framework of the ingrained case law of our department, the release agreements issued while the business relationship is ongoing are invalid.The employee is completely dependent on the employer during this period, and despite the provisions of job security, it is possible for him to sign a release agreement against his will in order to ensure the continuation of the employment relationship or to get some labor receivables as soon as possible, and the determined practice of our Department is in this direction (Supreme Court 9. HD. 15.10.2010 day, 2008/41165 E, 2010/29240 K.).

b) If the Hebrew does not contain a date and it is not clear from the content that it was edited after the termination date, the Hebrew cannot be valued (Supreme Court 9. HD. 5.11.2010 days, 2008/37441 E, 2010/31943 K).

c) Whether the Hebrew is valid or not, the Law of Obligations No. 818, which is in force until 01.07.2012, regulates the termination of the will 23-31. it should also be evaluated in terms of substances. In the event that one of the parties makes a fundamental mistake during the execution of the release agreement and encounters cheating or intimidation by the other party or a third party, the release will cannot be mentioned.

On the other hand, the excessive utilization (gabin) criterion mentioned in Article 21 of the Code of Obligations No. 818 should also be evaluated at the point of validity of release agreements.

Cases of will misappropriation in Hebrew must be brought forward within the one-year reduction period provided for in Article 31 of the Code of Obligations No. 818 (Court of Cassation 9. HD. 26.10.2010 day, 2009/27121 E, 2010/30468 K). However, in terms of printed Hebrew letters received when entering the job, the period of one year does not apply during the continuation of the employment relationship.

d) The release agreement is a way to terminate a debt whose existence is indisputable, but it is not possible to terminate debts whose existence is doubtful or disputed through release. For this reason, it is unthinkable that a debt to which the employee is claimed not to be entitled should be the subject of discharge. Release agreements that contradict the defense and other records of the employer must be recognized as invalid (Supreme Court 9. HD. 4.11.2010 day 2008/37372 E, 2010/31566 K).

e) In the case of release agreements containing the amount, the debt will be terminated through performance if the receivable is fully paid. However, in cases of partial payment, in the ingrained case law of our Department, the payoff is not valued and it is accepted that the paid payment is in the provision of receipt (Supreme Court 9. HD 21.10.2010 day 2008/40992 E, 2010/39123 K.). The fact that the Hebrew containing the amount was taken while working does not eliminate the receipt effect (Supreme Court 9. HD. 24.6.2010 day 2008/33748 E, 2010/20389 K.).

f) In the case of release agreements that do not contain amounts, the validity problem should be handled meticulously. An inspection of the corruption of the will should be carried out and solutions should be sought regarding the validity of the Hebrew according to the characteristics of the concrete event (Supreme Court 9. HD. 27.06.2008 day 2007/23861 E, 2008/17735 K.). In the Hebrew version, which is organized after the termination and the receivables are counted one by one, the release will must be considered valid unless the cases of will misappropriation are put forward and proven (Supreme Court HGK. day of 21.10.2009, 2009/396 E, 2009/441 K).

g) Again, the fact that the worker includes a passionate record in Hebrew that he reserves his legal rights indicates that he does not have the will to release (Supreme Court 9. HD. 4.11.2010 day 2008/40032 E, 2010/31666 K).

h) In terms of labor receivables that are not included in the Hebrew, it cannot be said that the debt has ended. The existence of a contradiction with the defense in terms of some of the labor receivables contained in the Hebrew does not completely invalidate the Hebrew. The will of release should be valued in terms of the parts that do not contradict the defense (Supreme Court 9. HD. day of 24.6.2010, 2008/33597 E, 2010/20380 K). In another way, the divisible influence of Hebrew can be mentioned in such cases. A Hebrew is considered a receipt in terms of some receivables, while in terms of some labor rights and receivables, invalidity may be mentioned due to a contradiction. In terms of items that do not have contradictions in the same Hebrew and do not contain amounts, the debt can be considered terminated through ibra.

The Hebrew defense can be put forward at any stage of the trial, being in the nature of an appeal that can eliminate the right (Supreme Court HGK. 27.1.2010 day 2009/9-586 E, 2010/31 K.; Supreme Court 9. HD. 13.7.2010 day, 2008/33764 E, 2010/23201 K.).

A concrete dispute, offered by the defendant to file, authenticated by the signature of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s signature is required and you are not in denial, fraud, threat and which cannot be proved by the plaintiff through ikrah sign that more work Fee Fee Fee receivables in terms of general holiday and weekend not in conflict with the defense of the defendant, and after the termination of an employment contract signed on 04/06/2004 for all these reasons, the current release agreement (disclaimer) more work, public holidays and the denial of claims decision should be made when the cost of a vacation week, it is wrong to make a decision in writing with the acceptance that the ibra agreement (Hebrew) is invalid for reasons that are not in place.

3- The second dispute between the parties is collected at the point of whether the correction made by the plaintiff was carried out Decently.

From the scope of the file, it has been understood that the plaintiff’s attorney corrected his case with a correction petition dated 25/05/2009 judge transfer, increased the amount of receivables in accordance with the expert report and deposited the correction fee on the same day, and the court established a judgment taking into account the correction.

The plaintiff’s attorney requested 1.000 TL severance pay, 1.000 TL notice compensation, 3.000 TL overtime pay, 1.000 TL general holiday pay, 1.000 TL week holiday pay and 1.000 TL leave fee in the lawsuit petition. In the correction petition written above, the plaintiff’s attorney has corrected his case in the form of “We are correcting the case we filed over TL 8.000 as TL 32.000 …” without specifying which amount he increased the amount he requested. It is clear that a correction made in this way is not in accordance with HUMK No. 1086 and HMK No. 6100. According to this correction, which is made without specifying which amount of receivables is increased, it is not possible to put receivables under judgment. What should be done by the court is to give the plaintiff’s attorney time to explain the petition for correction in question, to clearly indicate which amount he will receive, and to make a decision based on its result. It is wrong for the court to establish a verdict by taking into account this correction of the work that was not done properly.

4- It is also not considered that the failure to specify in the provision paragraph whether the amounts awarded are “net” or “gross” will cause hesitation in the execution of the provision, according to Article 297 of the CCP. it is contrary to its substance.

F) THE RESULT:

It was unanimously decided on 16.02.2017 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED due to the reasons written above, and the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the relevant person upon request.