9th Civil Chamber 2019/94 E. , 2019/10769 K.
“Justice Text”
COURT: ISTANBUL REGIONAL COURT OF COURT 30. LAW DEPARTMENT
CASE: The plaintiff requested that the invalidity of the termination, reinstatement and legal consequences be ruled.
The local court decided to accept the case.
The defendant’s lawyer filed an appeal against the admission decision of the Court of First Instance.
The 30th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice rejected the defendant’s appeal on the merits.
Although the decision of the 30th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer within the time limit, the file was examined after the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file was heard, and the need was discussed and considered:
JUDICIARY DECISION
A) Summary of Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff’s attorney declared that the defendant company was working as a worker in the logistics return department from 13.05.2013 until 22.07.2016, when the employment contract was terminated without a valid reason, and that his client’s employment contract was terminated without a valid reason with the termination notice dated 22.07.2016. and requested the plaintiff’s reinstatement.
B) Summary of Respondent’s Response:
The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for a valid reason as a result of his behavior that negatively affected the work flow, the continuity of the employment contract became unexpected for the employer, that the plaintiff was in a structure that exhibits irresponsible behaviors that negatively affect the work organization by not participating in the overtime work without an excuse, and that the plaintiff’s salary is high and high There are lien warrants, and he requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the warrants increase the workload of the follow-up works and create a negative impact on business planning.
C) Summary of Local Court Decision:
Although it was claimed that the court did not submit a record of when the plaintiff was late and on which days he was late, and it was claimed that the plaintiff often took leave, the permission documents showing the permissions taken by the plaintiff were not presented, and how the plaintiff’s permission caused the production to stop or slow down in the workplace. that no concrete evidence was presented, that the workload was a reason for termination due to the sequestration of the plaintiff’s salary, but from the witnesses’ statements heard, the fact that there are personnel working in the defendant workplace despite the salary seizure, and that the foreclosure of the employee’s salary is a severe sanction, there is no warning, the dismissal code notified to SGK by the defendant is also reported as “4 – Termination of the employment contract of an indefinite period without a just cause” by the employer, and it is clearly stated to the SGK that the plaintiff’s employment contract has been unfairly terminated by the defendant. it was decided that the case be accepted.
D) Appeal application:
The defendant’s attorney filed an appeal against the decision of the first-instance court.
E) Summary of the District Court’s Decision:
According to the sample of the workplace file submitted by the defendant employer by the regional court of appeal, the plaintiff was punished with a warning on the report of absenteeism dated 21.01.2014, and the issues related to the absence of the plaintiff, who were subsequently terminated as a reason for termination, could not be proved with minutes such as absenteeism reports, 08.07.2016 There is no reason for the termination of the action, which is the subject of the report of not showing up for the holiday work dated 03.12.2017, as the witnesses heard by the defendant still continue to work at the workplace, so their statements are not sufficient on their own, the plaintiff uses his leave with the approval of the defendant company official, and the plaintiff has not been given any warning before the termination due to 10 salary seizures. On the grounds that it could not be proved in a concrete way that the behavior of the plaintiff caused negativities in the workplace, it was decided to reject the application of the defendant’s attorney on the merits.
F) Appeal application:
Defendant’s attorney appealed the decision within the statutory period.
G) Reason:
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract was terminated by the employer rightly due to the employee’s behavior contrary to integrity and loyalty.
Article 18 of the Labor Law No. 4857 authorizes the employer to terminate the employment contract for reasons arising from the employee’s behavior and competence. The purpose of the termination arising from the behavior of the worker is not to punish or impose sanctions on the acts contrary to the employment contract that the worker has previously committed; it is to avoid the risk of continuing or repeating the breach of contractual obligations. In order for the employment contract to be terminated due to the employee’s behavior, the employee’s behavior in violation of the employment contract must exist. If the employee has acted in breach of the contract with his faulty behavior and the employment relationship has been adversely affected as a result, there is a valid termination arising from the employee’s behavior. This
On the other hand, since the worker cannot be held responsible for the worker’s acts contrary to the contract that are not based on his fault and negligence, the valid reason for termination arising from the worker’s behavior cannot be mentioned.
The reasons arising from the behavior and competence of the worker, besides the reasons stated in the 25th article of the same Law, are not of this nature, but they are the reasons that significantly affect the performance of the work in the workplaces. It will be necessary to accept that the termination is based on valid reasons, in cases where the continuation of the employment relationship cannot be expected to be significant and reasonable for the employer, due to the employee’s behavior or incompetence.
In the concrete dispute, the plaintiff’s employment contract is terminated with the termination letter dated 22.7.2016, “During the continuation of your work, the work flow is adversely affected because you frequently come to work late due to family issues and ask for leave before the working hours, however, you are also absent frequently. It also disturbs the peace of work in the workplace as it causes your other colleagues to need more workforce. Again, it has been determined that many enforcement proceedings have been made by different creditors and liens have been placed on your wage, this will also cause significant time loss in human resources, law and accounting departments. negatively affects the working process and workplace organization. You have been requested to defend yourself in writing due to your behavior of this nature, but you have not submitted any written defense. It was terminated on 22.07.2016 pursuant to the 17th and 18th articles of the Labor Law No. 4857”.
Although the allegations within the scope of the file that the plaintiff frequently arrives late for work and wants to leave the working hours early, could not be proven with the evidence and witness statements submitted by the defendant to the file, the employer has been subject to continuous enforcement proceedings, in which there are 12 salary seizure warrants written to the defendant employer by the enforcement offices on various dates submitted to the file. It is understood from the information and documents in the file that the plaintiff who caused the cause caused negativities in the workplace and that the termination made by the defendant employer based on the reasons explained was not justified, but based on a valid reason.
For the reasons explained, it is not appropriate to accept the case with a written reason instead of rejection.
Pursuant to Article 20/3 of the Labor Law No. 4857, our Department has decided as follows.
PROVISION: With the reason explained above;
1st Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 28th Civil Chamber and the decisions of the First Instance Court,
- DISCLAIMER OF THE CASE,
- Deduction of the 29.20 TL advance fee paid by the plaintiff from the 44.40 TL decision-making fee required to be collected and the remaining 15.20 TL decision-decision fee being collected from the plaintiff and recorded as revenue to the treasury,
- 300,00 TL paid by the defendant to be left above the trial expenses made by the plaintiff. collection of the trial expenses from the plaintiff and payment to the defendant,
- The fee of 2,275.00 TL, determined according to the tariff in effect on the date of the decision, is to be taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant,
- Upon request, the prepaid appeal fee is returned to the defendant, the file is sent to the Court of First Instance, a copy of the decision is sent to the Regional Court of Justice,
It was decided unanimously on 13.05.2019.
