It is understood that the Claimant and the Witness are witnesses of each other and that the calculations are made on the basis of witness testimony/Persons working together in the same workplace and claiming rights for the same reason and directly belonging to the Union of Interests, in which the Testimonies of the Claimant cannot be relied on because no other evidence is presented - the Claimant's Overtime National Holiday, and Requiring Denial of Severance Compensation Linked to These Receivables and the Difference in General Holiday Fee Meal Fee
9TH LEGAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE 2015/20572K. 2018/1190T. 24.1.2018
• LABOR RECEIVABLES (It is understood that the Claimant and the Witness witnessed each other and the calculations were made on the basis of witness statements/Persons working together in the same workplace and claiming rights for the same reason and directly belonging to the Union of Interests, in which the Testimonies of the Claimant cannot be relied upon because no other evidence is presented - Overtime National Holiday, which the Claimant cannot be proved because no other evidence is presented and Due to the Denial of Severance Compensation due to Those Receiving the Difference in General Holiday Pay Meal Fee and These Receivables)
• THAT EMPLOYEES IN THE SAME WORKPLACE TESTIFY TO EACH OTHER (For the same reason that the witness statements cannot be relied upon as claimants and are directly part of the Union of Interests - due to the fact that no other evidence has been presented, the plaintiff will be denied the severance compensation due to the fact that the claimant will receive the difference between the national holiday and public holiday meal allowance, which cannot be proved)
• THE FACT THAT THE WITNESS HAS A DIRECT INTEREST WITH THE PLAINTIFF (Due to the refusal of the severance compensation due to the fact that the plaintiff will receive the difference in the cost of food expenses and not be relied on by persons working together at the same place of work and claiming rights for the same reason and directly belonging to the Union of Interests - as no other evidence is presented.) 6100/m.255
SUMMARY: Claiming that he worked as a driver, the claimant was sent a notice for non-payment of the claimant's labour receivables and demanded the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, week holiday pay, national holidays and public holiday pay, annual paid leave, and the balance meal fee from the defendant. The plaintiff proved with the witness the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and public holiday wages, which he stated on the basis of justified termination. In the case files that were reviewed on the same day, it was understood that the plaintiffs were witnesses to each other, and the calculations were made on the basis of witness statements. The plaintiffs are persons who work together in the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason and are directly in the union of interests. For this reason, testimonies cannot be trusted. Nothing else is presented in the evidence. For this reason, the claimant must be denied severance pay due to unprovable overtime, national holidays and public holiday pay, meal pay and severance pay related to these claims.
CASE: The plaintiff sought an order to pay severance pay and overtime pay, week vacation pay, annual leave, balance meal pay, national holiday pay and public holiday pay.
The local court decided on partial acceptance of the case.
If the defendant's lawyer was appealed by the defendant's lawyer during the term of the sentence; after it was decided to reject the request for a hearing on the amount in accordance with Article 438 of the Humk. The report prepared by the Examining Judge was submitted, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:
VERDICT: Claiming that he worked as a driver, the claimant was sent a notice for non-payment of the claimant's labour receivables and demanded the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, week holiday pay, national holidays and public holiday pay, annual paid leave, and the balance meal fee from the defendant.
The defendant asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated due to absenteeism.
Based on the evidence collected and the expert's report, the court made a decision on partial acceptance of the case.
The decision was appealed by the defendant's deputy.
The plaintiff claimed that the employee had rightly terminated the employment contract because they were not paid what they were due, seeking overtime, national holiday and public holiday pay, week leave, meal difference and, accordingly, severance pay.
The defendant employer has filed a defense of absenteeism.
The court denied that the claimant would receive overtime, national holidays and public holidays, and related severance pay, the request for week holidays and annual paid leave.
The plaintiff proved with the witness the claim of non-payment of overtime, national holiday and public holiday wages, which he stated on the basis of justified termination. In the case files examined on the same day, it is understood that the plaintiffs witnessed each other (2015/4898 E., 2015/34583 E., 36420 E.,) and the calculations were made on the basis of witness statements.
The plaintiffs are persons who work together in the same workplace and claim rights for the same reason and are directly in the union of interests. For this reason, testimonies cannot be trusted. Nothing else is presented in the evidence. For this reason, the claimant's unprovable overtime, national holiday and public holiday pay, meal fee difference and refusal of severance pay related to these receivables was erroneous and necessitated a reversal of the decision in writing.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 24.01.2018 to CANCEL the appealed decision for the abovementioned reason, and to return the appeal fee received in advance if requested.