THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER OF THE WORKPLACE CLOSED DUE TO TERRORISM FOR NOTIFICATION AND SEVERANCE PAY

T.C. SUPREME

22. Law Department Article No:2015/18830
    Decision No :2017/24921
    Date of Decision: 15.11.2017
    CASE OF EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES – IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE LAW
    PAYMENT OF SEVERANCE PAY TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION
    IF NECESSARY, THE EMPLOYER MUST COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OR
    THERE ARE NO OBLIGATIONS TO PAY NOTICE COMPENSATION –
    REFUSAL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NOTICE COMPENSATION
    SUMMARY: Termination of the employer, Article 25 / III of the Law No. 4857. it is based on the justified reason in accordance with the article. Promise
    at the termination made in accordance with the said article, the employee must be paid severance pay, although,
    the employer has no obligation to comply with the notification requirement or to pay notice compensation. Hal Boyle
    when this happens, the court must decide on the rejection of the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation while accepting
    it was wrong and required a breakdown.
    (4857 P. K. m. 25) (1475 p. K. m. 14)
    Case: The defendant’s deputy for the examination of the decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties dec appeal
    as requested by the court, it became clear that the appeal request was in due course. The Examining Judge for the case file …
    after listening to the report edited by, the file was reviewed, discussed and considered as necessary:
    Decision: The deputy plaintiff, and the denunciation of his client’s employment contract as unfair by the defendant employer
    stating that it was terminated without prior notice, severance and notice compensation were not paid to the plaintiff
    he requested the defendant to collect some of the labor receivables that he claimed. The defendant’s deputy, the plaintiff’s business
    that his contract was terminated due to force majeure, therefore he is not entitled to notice compensation
    he has asked for the case to be dismissed by arguing. Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report
    it has been decided to partially accept the case. The decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
    1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant
    appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.
    25 of the Labor Code No. 2-4857. in subparagraph (III) of article (III), the employee must be in the workplace for more than one week
    in the event that a compelling reason arises that prevents you from working for a while, the employer must immediately terminate
    it is explained that he has the right. 25 / III of the Law No. 4857 on compelling reasons for the employment contract. clause
    in case of termination in accordance with the obligations of the employer to comply with the notification requirement or pay notice compensation
    is not included. However, according to Article 14 of the Labor Code No. 1475. in accordance with the article, severance pay
    must be paid. In a concrete dispute, the plaintiff’s employment contract is concluded by the defendant’s employer …
    No. 4857 on the grounds that the conditions caused by the incoming events eliminate the opportunity to work
    25 of the Code. it is terminated in accordance with subparagraph (III) of its article. … events that took place in and
    the civil war that began after this is a well-known case and this situation causes the worker to have a
    it is a compelling reason that prevents you from working with it for more than a week. In this case, the termination of the employer, No. 4857
    25/III of the Code. it is based on the justified reason in accordance with the article. Although severance pay is required to be paid to the employee at the termination made in accordance with the said article, the employer is not obliged to comply with the notification requirement or pay notice compensation. As a result, the court should have decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation, while its acceptance was erroneous and required to be overturned.
    Conclusion: If the appealed decision is OVERTURNED due to the reason written above, the appeal received in advance
    if the fee is requested, the refund to the relevant person was decided unanimously on 15.11.2017. (¤¤)