T.C. SUPREME
General Assembly of Law
Based on: 2006/9-479
Decision: 2006/484
Date of Decision: 28.06.2006
SUMMARY: as reported by the plaintiff and the defendant’s objection to the survey fee is made from professional organizations, other private courses with professional organizations from the Union of wage survey, considering all of the evidence collected by the aforementioned Circuit determined that the plaintiff wage specified in terms of labor rights and receivables, you should decide, while the previous decision procedures and it is against the law to stand.
(4857 P. K. m. 32)
Case: At the end of the trial due to the case between the parties; Ankara 13. 22.09.2005 day and 2005/750-945 decision issued by the Labor Court on the partial acceptance of the case upon request of the deputies of the parties to the examination, the Court of Cassation 9. With the decision of the Law Department dated 31.01.2006 and numbered 2005/34921, 2006/1842,
(… At the point of determining the monthly wage of the plaintiff employee, it was stated that a wage survey should be conducted from the relevant professional organization in the decision on the violation previously made by our department, and the decision on the violation referred to by the court was complied with. The article about the plaintiff’s monthly wage was asked from a statement established by employees of private classrooms and the conclusion was reached according to the article received. Although the wage survey has not been conducted from the relevant professional organization, the content of the decision to cancel it has not been fulfilled.
The subject should be asked by the relevant professional organization, the Private Tutoring Association (Özdebir), and all the evidence in the file should be evaluated together and decided …),
At the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision by being overturned on grounds and the file was returned to its place.
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and the papers in the file were read, the requirement was discussed:
Decisionbetween the parties, there is a dispute over the remuneration paid to the plaintiff employee.
In dec that may arise between the parties to the employment contract regarding the amount of wages, proof of the actual wage is possible with all kinds of evidence. It can be proved that the wages written in the employee’s signature payslips or the service contract are not real with evidence such as money receipts showing the monthly wage, bank records, commercial book records, witness statements. The fee may also be determined by asking the relevant professional organizations by specifying the work done by the plaintiff, the length of service and other defining characteristics in some cases where it is not possible to be determined in a way that leaves no room for doubt with the available evidence.
However, the amounts of fees reported by professional organizations are not binding on the parties and the court, and they must also be supported by other information and documents.
For the reasons specified, the plaintiff reported to the survey by professional organizations and is made from the defendant’s objection to the fee because of other professional courses private organizations from the Union of wage survey, considering all of the evidence collected by the aforementioned Circuit determined that the plaintiff wage specified in terms of labor rights and receivables, you should decide, while the previous decision procedures and it is against the law to stand. The decision to resist for the stated reasons must be overturned.
Conclusion: The decision of the defendant’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of appeals was made for the reasons shown above and in the decision to overturn the special chamber.429th. in accordance with the article, it was decided by a majority vote on 28.06.2006 to CANCEL it, return the fee in advance on appeal if requested.
