Republic of Turkey YARGITAY 22nd Law Office Base: 2019/ 5700 Decision: 2019 / 17173 Decision Date: 25.09.2019
SUMMARY: In the concrete case, it has been stated by the court that a large amount of equity reduction has been made in terms of overtime and weekly holiday wages. However, it was wrong not to specify the discount rate and to make a large amount of discount. While a reasonable reduction should be made by considering the amount of receivables that have been decided in relation to the specified receivable items, making a judgment by ignoring this issue was wrong and necessitated breaking it.
(1475 S. K. art. 14) (4857 S. K. art. 32, 41, 46, 47, 57)
Litigation and Decision: The decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the attorneys of the plaintiff and the defendants to be examined on appeal, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in time. After listening to the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the necessary was discussed and considered:
Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request: The plaintiff’s attorney, stating that the case is an indefinite receivables case, claimed that the plaintiff worked at the defendant’s workplace between 17.07.2006 and 04.10.2011 and that he terminated the employment contract rightly due to non-payment of labor receivables. He requested subsistence allowance, overtime work, weekly vacation and general vacation.
Summary of Response of the Defendant: The counsel for the defendants requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the basis of the just cause of absenteeism.
Summary of the Court Decision: Based on the collected evidence and the expert report, the decision of the court to partially accept the case with written justification, with the decision of our Chamber dated 19.11.2014, upon the appeal of the parties’ attorneys, that the severance pay, wage, leave and minimum living allowance receivables in the case are actually determinable receivables. and therefore, they cannot be the subject of an indefinite debt lawsuit, because of the lack of legal benefit in terms of the aforementioned claims, it is wrong to decide on the merits when the case should be rejected from the procedural basis, that the defendant’s statute of limitations against rehabilitation should be evaluated in terms of overtime, weekdays, national holidays and general holidays, and that overtime work and week holidays should be evaluated. It was overturned on the grounds that the court did not specify the discount rate on the receivables and the fact that a large amount of discount was made was incorrect. At the end of the retrial, the Court decided to resist the annulment decision on the grounds that the case could be filed as an indefinite debt suit, the objection to the statute of limitations was evaluated, the reduction made was discretionary, and the amount of the reduction can be easily understood when the figures are examined. The decision to resist was appealed by the attorneys of the parties. With the decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 09.04.2019, it was accepted that the decision of the Court to resist was appropriate in that the concrete dispute case could be opened as an indefinite debt case and the statute of limitations against correction could not be taken into account, and examining the other appeals of the defendants on the merits according to the reasons for the reversal explained in the annulment notice of our Chamber. It has been decided to send the file to our Department for the purpose of overtime work and week vacation receivables without specifying the rate, and to reverse the decision of resistance with the acceptance of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeals.
Appeal: The plaintiff and the defendants’ attorneys appealed the decision.
Justification: 1-According to the evidence gathered from the articles in the file and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, it was necessary to reject all of the plaintiff’s other appeals, which are outside the scope of the following subparagraph.
2- The dispute between the parties is gathered at the point of not specifying the discount rate for overtime work and weekly holiday wages and whether the discount is exorbitant.
It has become a stable practice that if the overtime work is calculated for a long time and the amount is high, a reasonable reduction should be made by the Supreme Court. However, if the overtime work is based on written documents and employer records instead of witness statements, such a reduction is not applied. The deduction to be made should be appreciated according to the way the worker works and the arrangement of the work and the amount of overtime calculated. A reduction should not be made at a rate that would eliminate the essence of the right.
In the concrete case, it was stated by the court that a large amount of equity reduction was made in terms of overtime work and weekly holiday wages. However, it was wrong not to specify the discount rate and to make a large amount of discount. While a reasonable reduction should be made by considering the amount of receivables that have been decided in relation to the specified receivable items, making a judgment by ignoring this issue was wrong and necessitated breaking it.
Result: The appealed decision is OVERFINED for the reason written above, the appeal fee paid in advance is returned to the relevant parties upon request, 25It was decided unanimously on .09.2019.
