[ad_1]
With the preceding Supreme Court decision, deliberately slowing down work, interrupting work flow, praising the rival company in the same industry in the workplace, and saying ‘God save’ to your colleagues will be considered grounds for dismissal.
At the factory where he worked, the teacher’s boss, who made uncomfortable words and behavior despite all the warnings from management, was fired without compensation. The captain, who addressed the 2nd Labor Court, alleged that the employer unfairly terminated the employment contract, and requested the collection of severance pay and notice and compensation from the defendant for violation of the principle of equality. Owner of the defendant company; It stated that the plaintiff received frequent warnings, that he did not come to work without permission, that he behaved negatively towards his colleagues, that he delayed work, that he harmed the client company due to his recklessness and carelessness, and that the plaintiff was repeatedly warned by the referred minutes, but there was no improvement in the plaintiff. Cut; decided that the case should be partially accepted and that severance pay and notice should be paid to the plaintiff. When the defendant employer appealed the decision, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court came into play.
‘THE INDEMNIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN CORRECT’
In the decision of the Supreme Court; It was pointed out that even though factory employees said “good luck” to the newly hired staff, the plaintiff teacher denigrated the workplace by saying “May God save” the staff right up the nose.
In the decision; “The witnesses stated that they brought good luck to the newcomers who arrived at the workplace and that the plaintiff said that God will save them and that the name of another company was given in the section and that the salary was paid as much as this and that the signature on the record belonged to him. According to the entire content of the file, the minutes taken and the statements of the witnesses heard, the plaintiff’s speech and actions against his colleagues in the workplace disrupt the work environment, the words he said about his colleagues do not comply with the work ethic in the workplace and in that sense, the plaintiff’s actions that disturb the peace and quiet of the workplace are fixed. it’s understood. These behaviors of the plaintiff openly allow the employer to terminate the right in accordance with 25 / II of Labor Law No. 4857. The court’s decision on the acceptance of severance pay and severance pay in specific cases was contrary to the principle of equity and balance of interests. For these reasons, the decision to accept the claimant’s severance pay claim and severance notice, when it should have been rejected, was erroneous and required revocation. It was decided that the judicial decision was unanimously annulled ”.
