- Law Office
Base Number: 2016/26856
Decision Number: 2019/22796
“Justice Text”
COURT: CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (JOB)
The decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant-the plaintiff’s attorney to examine the 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 need was discussed and considered:
JUDICIARY DECISION
A) Plaintiff – Summary of Defendant’s Request for Merged File:
Plaintiff – defendant in the combined case, worker’s attorney; his client started to work with the defendant in 1997, his seniority and other rights were given to him on 31/12/2004, he was entered into the firm of …, then he entered the defendant company again in 2013, the beginning of the insurance was made in 2005, the last salary he received was 2.826.00 per month. TL and working as a technical service personnel, technical support, after-sales service, elevator maintenance and repair works, on 19/02/2014 by the company owner and general manager … they were told that no payment would be made and they were taken out of the factory under security supervision, 24/ On 02/2014 …. With the notary public’s notice numbered 4863, it was warned that the plaintiff copied the prohibited controlled documents, that there were 43 documents in his locker on 20/02/2014, that the employment contract was therefore terminated pursuant to Article 25/II-e of the Labor Law, to establish a company as claimed by the defendant. that a capital of 1,000,000 TL is required for the company, that his client, who makes a meager living on the fee he receives and does not have a single penny of savings, never has any intention or preparation to establish a company, that the defendant’s claims are purely fictitious, that the company documents circulating in the market and that the defendant claims that he is under control, and Claiming that there are documents in many people, that his client would not keep these documents in his locker if he had the intention of stealing, that his client’s employment contract was not paid despite the unfair termination of employment, he demanded the collection of severance pay, notice indemnity, bad faith compensation and annual leave fee from the defendant.
B) Summary of Response of Defendant-Combined File Plaintiff:
Defendant – the plaintiff’s employer’s attorney in the merged file; The client company has a reputable name among elevator companies since 1985, it has produced and marketed many firsts technically, almost all of the employees in the company have been working for many years, even after retirement, that the owner of the company is personally in charge of technical production, In addition to the information that will be accepted as a professional secret regarding the products he gave, it was copied by the plaintiff, who had worked and worked for many years, and that he entered a new structure with these documents, that they found and recorded the documents kept by the plaintiff, that the firm was operated in accordance with TS EN ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management Standards, It is stated that the information is called “controlled document”, that the preparation, approval, publication, distribution, revision, cancellation and storage of the controlled document is described as the documents under control in the document titled “Control of Documents”, and to whom the controlled copies will be distributed. He demanded the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the decision-making authority rests with the general manager, that the copies with the controlled document stamp are delivered to the relevant departments and persons against signature, that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for just cause, that he has no receivables. demanded the collection of compensation of 5,000,00 TL from the defendant due to his behavior contrary to his duty of loyalty.
C) Summary of Local Court Decision:
With the partial acceptance of the original lawsuit, the court ruled that severance pay, notice indemnity and annual leave receivables be collected from the defendant employer, and the combined lawsuit was dismissed.
D) Appeal:
The defendant-unite file plaintiff employer’s attorney appealed against the decision.
E) Reason:
1-According to the legal reasons on which the decision is based with the evidence gathered in the articles in the file, the objections of the defendant – the plaintiff of the combined file, which are outside the scope of the following subparagraph, are not appropriate.
2-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer for just cause.
The plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was unfairly terminated, and the defendant employer defended the rightful termination based on the reason that the plaintiff took photocopies of some of the documents belonging to the workplace without permission, although he did not have the authority.
Even though the claimant’s severance and notice indemnity demands were accepted by the court, on the grounds that “… a report was taken from the tripartite expert committee in order to determine whether there was a breach of the loyalty obligation, and the allegations based on the claimant were not in place in line with the report received…”, the conclusion reached is not in accordance with the scope of the file.
25th article of the Labor Law No. 4857
