T. OF JURISPRUDC.
SUPREM.C.
SUPT.C.
SUPREME COURT
GENERAL COURT OF JURISPRUDENCE
E. 2015/9-1598
K. 2017/643
T. 5.4.2017
* LABOR RECEIVABLES (Poor Performance is Not Included among the Justified Reasons for Termination / It is One of the Cases that Disrupts the Normal Functioning of the Workplace, Prevents the Fulfillment of the Work Obligation Decently And Constitutes a Valid Reason for Termination – The Claimant’s Severance and Notice Compensation Claims Should Be Accepted)
* SEVERANCE AND NOTICE COMPENSATION (Although Poor Performance Is Not Enough to Constitute a Justified Reason for Termination, It is One of the Cases that Impedes the Fulfillment of the Duty of Employment, Which Disrupts the Normal Functioning of the Workplace, And Constitutes a Valid Reason for Termination – The Case Will Be Accepted)
* VALID TERMINATION (Where the Employee’s Incomplete Poor or Inadequate Performance of His Job Despite Warnings is the Valid Reason for Termination / The Claimant is Mentioned to have Performed His Employment Debt Incompletely and Poorly/The Employment Contract was Terminated for Valid Reasons Based on Poor Performance – Severance and Notice Compensation Claims Will be Accepted)
* POOR PERFORMANCE (It is Not Included among the Justified Reasons for Termination / It is One of the Conditions that Prevent the Fulfillment of the Work Obligation that Disrupts the Normal Functioning of the Workplace and Constitutes a Valid Reason for Termination – It Does Not Prevent the Employee from Being Entitled to Severance and Notice Decrees)* POOR PERFORMANCE (It is Not Included among the Justified Reasons for Termination / It is One of the Conditions that Prevent the Fulfillment of the Work Obligation that Disrupts the Normal Functioning of the Workplace and Constitutes a Valid Reason for Termination – It Does Not Prevent the Employee from Being Entitled to Severance and Notice Decrees)
4857/m.18,25/2
SUMMARY: The case is about the request for labor receivables.RY: The case is about the request for labor receivables. The minutes included in the file and used as a basis for the termination of the employment contract are related to low performance, and the defendant employer also stated in its defense that the employment contract was terminated due to the plaintiff’s reduced work efficiency and refusal to give a defense,UMMARY: The case is about the request for labor receivables. The minutes included in the file and used as a basis for the termination of the employment contract are related to low performance, and the defendant employer also stated in its defense that the employment contract was terminated due to the plaintiff’s reduced work efficiency and refusal to give a defense, and also presented some documents regarding low performance. 25 of the Law No. 4857 entitled “The employer’s right to immediate termination for just cause”. when the article is examined, it is clear that the employee’s underperformance is not included among the reasons for the Decertified termination. “Poor performance”, which is cited as the reason for termination of the employment contract, is a valid termination reason regulated in Article 18 of the Labor Law No. 4857.Poor performance”, which is cited as the reason for termination of the employment contract, is a valid termination reason regulated in Article 18 of the Labor Law No. 4857. Although poor performance does not weigh heavily enough to constitute a justified reason for termination, it is one of the conditions that disrupt the normal functioning of the workplace, prevent the fulfillment of the work obligation as required, and since it constitutes a valid reason for termination and this form of termination does not prevent the employee from being entitled to severance and notice compensation, the plaintiff’s severance and notice compensation claims must be accepted.
On the other hand, the local court’s decision to resist stated that the performance deficiency that led to the termination of the plaintiff worker’s employment contract was regulated in Article 25/II-h of the Labor Law No. 4857, and therefore the employer’s termination was based on a just cause.n the other hand, the local court’s decision to resist stated that the performance deficiency that led to the termination of the plaintiff worker’s employment contract was regulated in Article 25/II-h of the Labor Law No. 4857, and therefore the employer’s termination was based on a just cause. Article 25/II-h of the Labor Law accepts an employee’s insistence on not doing the tasks he is assigned to do, even though he is reminded of them, as a reason for justified termination. On the other hand, it is a valid reason for termination if the employee performs his/her job incompletely, poorly or inadequately despite the warnings. If the employee does not fulfill his duty despite the warning, the employer will be able to terminate him immediately for just cause; if he fulfills it incompletely, poorly or inadequately, he will be able to use his valid termination right.f the employee does not fulfill his duty despite the warning, the employer will be able to terminate him immediately for just cause; if he fulfills it incompletely, poorly or inadequatelyf the employee does not fulfill his duty despite the warning, the employer will be able to terminate him immediately for just cause; if he fulfills it incompletely, poorly or inadequately, he will be able to use his valid termination right. As can be understood from the minutes included in the file, the plaintiff is not mentioned as not fulfilling his duty to perform work at all, but as performing it incompletely and poorly. Moreover, the condition of insistence is sought in Article 25/ II-h of the Labor Law, and there is no information and documents within the scope of the file that the plaintiff insists on not doing his duties even though he was reminded. In this case, as it is understood that the employment contract was terminated for a valid reason based on poor performance, the claimant’s severance and notice compensation claims should be accepted, as mentioned in the decision to break up the Private Apartment.
CASE : At the end of the trial conducted due to the “labor claims” case between the parties, the Kayseri 2ndASE : At the end of the trial conducted due to the “labor claims” case between the parties, the Kayseri 2nd The Labor Court ruled that there was no room for a decision regarding annual leave CASE : At the end of the trial conducted due to the “labor claims” case between the parties, the Kayseri 2nd The Labor CourASE : At the end of the trial conducted to the “labor claims” case between the parties, the Kayseri 2nd The Labor Court ruled that there was no room for a decision regarding annual leave pay, and that the case should be dismissed regarding severance and notice pay, on 11.10.2012 and 2011/647 E., Upon the request of the plaintiff’s attorney to review the decision numbered 2012/745 K. on appeal, the Supreme Court 9th The day of the Law Office is 21.10.2014 and 2012/36820 E, 2014/30417 K. with the numbered decision;
(… The plaintiff worker has filed this lawsuit, claiming that his employment contract was terminated unjustly, and requesting that his severance pay, notice pay and annual leave pay be paid.(… The plaintiff worker has filed this lawsuit, claiming that his employment contract was terminated unjustly, and requesting that his severance pay, notice pay and annual leave pay be paid.
The respondent employer argued that his defense was requested due to(… The plaintiff worker has filed this lawsuit, claiming that his employment contract was terminated unjustly, and requesting that his severance pay, notice pay and annual leave pay be paid.
The respondent employer argued that his defense was requested due to poor performance, he did not provide a defense, and the employment contract was terminated due to a decrease in productivity.He has rightly argued that the employment contract has been terminated
It was accepted by the court that the termination made by the employer was justified, the compensation requests were rejected and the annual leave fee was accepted.
The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision within the legal period.
1-)According to the evidence collected in the articles in the file and the legally required reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not appropriate.
2-) The defendant employer’s representative stated in his reply petition that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to poor performance, not signing the warnings and defense given, and not recognizing the management authority. However, the disciplinary board decision states that he was terminated for the crime of wasting raw materialshe defendant employer’s representative stated in his reply petition that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to poor performance, not signing the warnings and defense given, and not recognizing the management authority. However, the disciplinary board decision states that he was terminated for the crime of wasting raw materials and materials. The defendant employer could not prove that the plaintiff damaged the raw materials and materials. Only performance-based documents were presented regarding the issues mentioned in the reply petition. Although the worker’s low performance may be a valid reason for termination, it is not in Article 25 of the Labor Law. among the reasons for Decertification regulated in the article are the employee’s poor performance. In this case, while the plaintiff’s notice and severance payment requests should have been accepted, the rejection of the requests in writing was erroneous and required to be overturned.among the reasons for Decertification regulated in the article are the employee’s poor performance. In this case, while the plaintiff’s notice and severance payment requests should have been accepted, the rejection of the requests in writing was erroneous and required to be overturned.
3-)The annual leave fee was paid during the trial and it is wrong not to take into account this situation in terms of trial expenses. The plaintiff’s attorney has appealed the decision in terms of trial expenses, and the trial expenses should be ruled against the defendant employer, which caused the lawsuit to be filed…),
At the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision by overturning the decision on the grounds that it was rejected instead of the file.At the end of the retrial, the court resisted the previous decision by overturning the decision on the grounds that it was rejected instead of the file.
After it was understood that the decision to resist had been appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of Law and the papers in the file were read, the necessity was discussed:
DECISION : The plaintiff’s attorney requested a decision to collect severance and notice compensation and annual leave fee from the defendant, arguing that his client worked as a “hole machine operator” at the defendant’s workplace, the employment contract was terminated unfairly on the grounds that he reduced his working power and did not sign the minutes, the reason for poor performance was abstract and unreal.
The defendant employer’s attorney defended the dismissal of the case by stating that the employment contract was terminated for just cause by the decision of the disciplinary board due to the plaintiff’s behavior at work, reduced work efficiency, refusing to sign the warnings and defenses given to him and not recognizing the employer’s management authority, therefore the plaintiff cannot be entitled to severance and notice compensation.
The defendant witnesses heard by the court stated in their statements that the plaintiff was drilling 500 steel holes on average per day, while he was getting an offer from another workplace, and then they declared that he was drilling 240 holes per day, so the employer terminated the employment contract by the decision of the disciplinary board, the termination was made within 6 working days, the termination by the employer was based on a justified reason, the severance and notice compensation claims were rejected, and the annual leave was paid during the trial, indicating that there was no place for a decision on this claim.
Upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney, the judgment was overturned by the Special Chamber on the grounds described in the title section above.Upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney, the judgment was overturned by the Special Chamber on the grounds described in the title section above.
The court of Cassation resisted the previous decision in terms of the reason for the violation contained in subparagraph (2) of the Court of Cassation’s decision on the grounds that the employee’s poor performance is contained in Article 25/II-h of the Labor Code, as mentioned in the decision to overturn, and the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision to resist on the grounds that the plaintiff who did not perform his duty properly could not be entitled to severance and notice compensation.
The dispute that comes before the General Assembly of Civil Law through resistance is gathered at the point of whether the termination made by the defendant employer is based on a just cause, and according to the conclusion to be reached from here, the plaintiff can be entitled to severance and notice compensation.The dispute that comes before the General Assembly of Civil Law through resistance is gathered at the point of whether the termination made by the defendant employer is bThe dispute that comes before the General Assembly of Civil Law through resistance is gathered at the point of whether the termination made by the defendant employer is based on a just cause, and according to the conclusion to be reached from here, the plaintiff can be entitled to severance and notice compensation.
24 and 25 of the Labor Law No. 4857. its articles regulate the cases of immediate termination of the employment contract by the employee and the employer with just cause.
25 of the Law No. 4857 entitled “The employer’s right to immediate termination for just cause”. article:
“The employer, whether the period is determined or not, may terminate the employment contract before the end of the period or without waiting for the notice period in the following cases:
I-) Health reasonsThe employer, whether the period is determined or not, may terminate the employment contract before the end of the period or without waiting for the notice period in the following cases:
I-) Health reasons:
a-)If the employee gets sick or becomes disabled due to an illness caused by his caste or uncluttered life or fondness for drinking, the absence that will occur for this reason lasts for three consecutive working days or more than five working days in a month Dec,
b-)If it is determined by the Health Board that the disease in which the employee is being held is incurable and that there are disadvantages to working at the workplace,
(a) the right of the employee to terminate the employment contract for the employer without notice in cases such as illness, accident, birth and pregnancy, except for the reasons listed in subparagraph 17, in accordance with the employee’s working time at the workplace in the specified cases. he is born after he exceeds the notification period in the article by six weeksa) the right of the employee to terminate the employment contract for the employer without notice in cases such as illness, accident, birth and pregnancy, except for the reasons listed in subparagraph 17, in accordance with the empl,
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.