Summary:
the file did not claim that the plaintiff had trespassed on the computer containing information about the illness of the institution’s doctor, no justification for the termination of such an event was made, the wording unrelated to the file was incorrect on the decision, the decision could not be audited, the decision was therefore without justification, the parties’ claims and defenses, and the decision had to be overturned for this reason only in order to examine and discuss the termination action.
T.C.
Supreme
- law office
Base No:2014/24361
Decision No:2014/37164
K. Date:4.12.2014
COURT : ISTANBUL ANADOLU 15. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
DATE : 10/06/2014
NUMBER : 2013/1703-2014/341
CASE : The plaintiff requested that the termination be invalidated and that his/her return to work be decided.
The local court has decided to dismiss the case.
Although the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the trial period; As a matter of nature, it was decided to refuse the request for a hearing, to conduct the examination on the documents, but for the case file
The Examining Magistrate .. after listening to the report edited by, 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:
Deputy plaintiff; the title of the plaintiff that the defendant director of Occupational Health and safety in the workplace, working with employment up to and what is right, nor that any behavior that may cause termination with a valid reason is not that worked during the period of notice or warning if you have not received any negative legal incompetence and non-conformities and uncooperative and unresponsive to calls for the plaintiff to correct the demand of cooperation does not give any information about the activities of occupational physicians in the medical unit and record retention due to, it’s invisible clear whether the alleged comply with the laws and regulations of studies, therefore, it was decided that the defence of the defendant was asked of occupational physicians and occupational physicians on 24.11.2012 that are to be requested from the human resources director of the company with all these draft determinations of defense articles that are shared following personal health occupational physicians provides access to the plaintiff files a suit by claiming that the plaintiff complained about the slander, the plaintiff opened a disciplinary investigation because of his supervision, the defendant company in the notice of termination of unauthorized access to personal health workplace health and safety inspection of the files in the unit is, therefore, claimed that it was contrary to the law and ethical principles, but these claims are completely false and it is against the law, need, depending on regulations, ohs and OHS Regulations Law No. 4857 old 6331 connected in the examination of the plaintiff and of the righteousness of the law will be understood by stating clearly behaving in accordance with the regulations of the plaintiff requested reinstatement.
B) Summary of Respondent’s Response:
Attorney for the defendant; and the plaintiff’s employment with written notification of the decision of the Disciplinary Board dated 29.03.2013 based on the behavior as a valid reason for paying all rights terminated by the employer to provide occupational health and safety services. among Employees Occupational Safety Specialists, occupational health physician and other health care personnel appoint employees exposed to health and safety risks at work considering they are staying where they will be subjected to the employee’s private life and health surveillance Health commissioned the examination of his reputation
from a conservation perspective obliged to keep their health information that is confidential, yolug the responsibility of the physician in occupational physicians of the plaintiff’s employees and file the paperwork involved with the personal information that was detected and analyzed without the permission of the plaintiff and file the documents are examined, the workplace, the worker nurse Kamuran Bayraktar, “company doctor at a time without the plaintiff’s in the papers you review the files and documents that came with the personal information of individuals,” stated the document of this kind of study of which the presence of the person concerned in the workplace, the corporate audit department and the legal department that are only possible with the support of the aforementioned documents and files containing private information of people that have to be kept confidential by the employer and, otherwise would disappear by the employee to the employer the confidence that the health of the employees that you have to keep their confidential information of your employer, the plaintiff, by acting contrary to the rules and procedures of the company at the time of the “doctor-patient confidentiality”, which is in the nature of employees ‘ paperwork and time, looking into taking pictures, patient privacy rights have been violated, when looking at the action in question with the plaintiff and the defense that the plaintiff is negative relationship between occupational physicians, occupational physicians, the deficiencies of the plaintiff’s instead of sharing with the employer in an effort to reveal itself is this related to the work of the Coordination of the relationship between the parties with regard negative weakened, or even removed from the incident in question, however, with occupational physicians working in coordination with the work of the plaintiff is very important in terms of execution of, the employer in question the plaintiff as a result of the actions of the trust relationship between disappearance and become impossible the continuation of the business relationship, the subject of a disciplinary complaints have been made about the plaintiff’s employment was dissolved as a result of evaluation by stating that based on valid reasons to dismiss the case asked.
C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the spot.
D) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the acting plaintiff.
E) Justification:
On the grounds of the court’s decision in the concrete case “…..it was concluded that the plaintiff’s computer containing the information about the illness of the institution’s doctor could only be accessed by the institution’s doctor, while the plaintiff’s computer was damaged by the institution’s trust by entering the institution’s doctor’s computer without permission to access this information, and for this reason he was dismissed, but the termination was in place, and his case should be dismissed. It has been said that “. Doctor in the institution of the plaintiff’s medical condition but the file that contains information about the computer intrusion is not the claim of such an event of termination has been made on the grounds of the decision, the reason for it is written statements that have nothing to do with the file incorrectly, the decision of the regulation where it is not possible, the decision is unjustified, therefore, the parties discussed the termination with the subject of the claims and defenses of the action and the decision had to be decided, the only reason for these corruption.
F) The result:
It was unanimously decided on 04.12.2014 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the above-mentioned reason, that there is no place for examining other appeals at this stage according to the reason for the violation, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person upon request.
