USING PHRASES SUCH AS “IDIOT, IDIOT” TO A COLLEAGUE

Summary:

Although the court decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the one who caused the incident, it is fixed that the plaintiff used the words “idiot, idiot” for another employee when the defendant’s witness statements are taken into account the written statements of other workers referred to in the workplace investigation.

T.C.
Supreme

9. law office

Issue No:2014/22068
Decision No:2014/37710
K. Historical:

CASE : The plaintiff requested that the termination be invalidated and that his/her return to work be decided.
The local court has ruled on the request.

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

Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I

A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff, on 17/07/2013, swearing and insults of his colleagues were subjected to the insults on them to convey on 29/07/2013 investigation initiated as a result of the plaintiff’s work ” that is driven by insulting your friend” if you are terminated for the reason however, that this argument is not valid and does not reflect the truth that the plaintiff’s termination of employment with the invalidity of the claim that it was unfair and illegal dissolved, with compensation to be given to the decision to return to work accordingly and wages requested.

B) Summary of Respondent’s Response:

The defendant stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for the rightful reason in accordance with Article 25 /II-d, the plaintiff worked as the chief of overseas tours in the company …..on 17/07/2013, he filed a petition on the same day claiming that he had insulted and cursed at him, filed a complaint, an investigation was opened into the complaint, according to the witness statements referred to his statements, it was found that the plaintiff insulted his colleague and provoked a fight, arguing that he asked for a dismissal of the case.

C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:

According to the statements of the witnesses heard by the court, the head of overseas tours sent an email to the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff informed the chief of quality that he wanted to respond to this email, while the chief of overseas tours who came out of his room said “you are talking about me, I will put those words in your place”, both employees were fired because of this controversy, according to the way the incident happened, the chief of overseas tours could not hear the plaintiff, on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the cause of the incident it has been decided to accept the case.

D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the deputy defendant.

E) Justification:

Although the court decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was not the one who caused the incident, it is fixed that the plaintiff used the words “idiot, idiot” for another employee when the defendant’s witness statements are taken into account the written statements of other workers referred to in the workplace investigation.

In this case, these words that the plaintiff apparently said to another employee working at the workplace are offensive and the acceptance of the case instead of rejection is erroneous, since it is understood that the termination of the employer is based on a justified reason according to Article 25/2-d of law No. 4857.
In accordance with Article 20/3 of the Labor Code No. 4857, our Department has decided as follows.

PROVISION : On the grounds described above;

1. TO OVERTURN AND ELIMINATE the court’s decision,
2. REFUSAL OF THE Case,
3. Since the fee is received in advance, there is no place for its re-receipt,
   4.Leaving the plaintiff’s trial expenses above, the defendant’s trial expenses of TL 136.00 are collected from the plaintiff and paid to the defendant,
   5.According to the tariff in force at the date of the decision, a fee of TL 1,500 is charged to obtain the power of attorney from the plaintiff and grant it to the defendant,
4. Refund of the appeal fee received in advance to the defendant at his request,
   The final was decided by unanimous decision on 09.12.2014.