[ad_1]
The court decision against compensation from the waiter who eats the pudding sold at the kiosk in Bursa was returned by the Supreme Court.
THERE IS SUGAR THAT DAMAGED SOUTH SEED WITHOUT COMPENSATION
The young waitress, who learned to have blood pressure, ate the sugar in the kitchen buying a 2 TL bowl of rice pudding from the buffet. The operator, who saw this, fired the waiter without compensation for acting unfaithfully.
GARSON REQUIRES COMPENSATION, THE COURT SAID ‘USING THE BAD MISSION’
The waiter, who brought the incident to court, claimed that the termination was unfair and demanded that the severance pay and notification be brought to court.
The defending operator of the court stated that employees were prohibited from drinking free food and that it was not excluded that the products offered for sale on the shelves and kiosks of shopping malls were not paid without paying the price.
In judging the plaintiff worker as unfair, the Labor Court noted that employees were prohibited from eating unpaid or unpaid food at the buffet during business hours, as agreed in the employment contract between the parties. When the waiter appealed the decision, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court came into play.
THE REASON FOR TERMINATION IS NOT CORRECT
Noting that the burden of proof that the termination was based on justified or valid reasons was given to the defendant employer, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the waiter’s dismissal due to rice pudding was contrary to the principle of “proportionality”.
He recalled that the employer is required to demonstrate that the reasons for the termination in terms of content are justified or valid while the burden of proof is met. The decision read: “In the case of Feshe, it is unacceptable that the plaintiff’s action of eating a bowl of free rice pudding in the dishwasher is entitled to terminate the employment contract.” It was unanimously resolved to interrupt the appealed decision.
