Determination Of Actual Wages Supreme Court Decision
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 21st Civil Chamber
CASE NO: 2013/17594
DECISION NO: 2014/2401
The plaintiff requested a decision confirming their employment at the workplace belonging to the defendant employer.
As stated in the court ruling, the request was denied.
Upon appeal of the judgment by the plaintiff and the defendant’s representative, it was determined that the appeal was filed within the time limit, and after reviewing the documents in the file with the report prepared by the Examining Judge, the matter was considered and the following decision was reached.
DECISION
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the compelling reasons on which the ruling is based, all appeals of the defendant SGK are rejected.
2-Regarding the plaintiff’s appeal:
The case concerns the plaintiff’s request for the determination of the actual wage for his work.
The court’s decision to reject the request for determination of the actual wage is based on insufficient investigation and examination.
It is contrary to the normal course of life for a qualified and experienced worker to work for the minimum wage according to the nature of the work performed. In this case, it cannot be considered that the documents issued by the employer based on the minimum wage cannot be proven otherwise.
In the specific case, it was alleged that at the defendant’s workplace, the portion of the wage shown in the insurance base was paid through a bank, while the remaining portion was paid in cash in an envelope in a room at the workplace after the workers lined up. Many workers filed lawsuits to determine their actual wages. In lawsuits of the same nature, a CD containing camera footage from the workplace related to the payment of cash in envelopes was submitted to the case file. This footage showed workers waiting in line in front of a room door, with those coming out holding thin, long envelopes, as alleged. Witnesses also stated that such a practice existed at the workplace, and the pay slips were unsigned. it is understood that the plaintiff worked as a forklift operator in the packaging department, and that the Eskişehir Chamber of Commerce stated in its letter that those performing comparable work between 2007 and 2010 could receive wages within a range of 30% above the minimum wage.
The court’s task is to accept the camera footage submitted as evidence in the case as prima facie evidence, to obtain the plaintiff’s personnel file and payroll records for the relevant period from the Social Security Institution, to determine the scope and capacity of the workplace through an inspection and expert examination, to refer to the statements of other employees registered on the employer’s payroll records when necessary, to compare the employer’s declarations with the qualifications of the employees, to focus on whether the employer declared the actual wages according to the seniority and position of the employees, to determine whether the plaintiff is a skilled worker for whom working for the declared wage is unusual, whether he was employed in a skilled job, and if it is determined that working for the declared wage is unusual, evaluate whether the wages paid by the employer to workers in the same position are accurate; if these reports are found to be accurate, use these wages as a basis; otherwise, conduct a comparative wage study from workplaces performing similar work, when necessary from the relevant professional chamber and the Turkish Statistical Institute, and make a decision based on the result obtained.
Therefore, the appellant’s appeals for review aimed at these aspects should be accepted, and the judgment should be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 02/17/2014 to OVERTURN the judgment for the reasons stated above and to refund the appeal fee to the appellant from the appellants upon request.
