[ad_1]
A worker, who claimed to have been fired from his workplace without compensation, filed an application with the First Labor Court. Stating that he was unfairly fired, exposed to psychological harassment, worked 7 days a week at the defendant’s workplace and could not take vacations on official and religious holidays, the worker stated that he worked between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. tomorrow, between 12.30 pm and 11 pm. Workers who state that they work on official and religious holidays, on weekends, that no additional wages are paid, that their annual vacations are not used, along with interest to be charged on severance pay, notice pay, hourly pay extra, pay for weekend vacations, pay for annual vacations, salary for official and religious holidays. demanded to be sentenced.
If the defendant is the employer, the plaintiff’s employment contract is 25/2 of the Labor Law. He claimed that the plaintiff was a person who used abusive speech against employees in the same workplace, who used pressure, threats and insults against employees. After indicating that annual leave and vacation pay in general have been paid, the workplace requested that the case be rejected. The court decided to accept the case partially. When the defendant employer appealed the decision, the Ninth Legal Department of the Court of Cassation intervened. The Chamber, which announced its decision recently, paved the way for the dismissal without compensation of workers who were in conflict with their co-workers. The decision read:
“It is confirmed with the information and documents of the file that the employment contract of the plaintiff worker was terminated by the defendant employer based on the justification of harassing another worker of the defendant employer. It is also noted that more than one worker submitted a written request to the employer prior to dismissal and complained about the plaintiff’s words of harassment / insult. Some of the complainants were also heard as witnesses and made the same allegations in their testimonial statements. Considering that the defendant employer is justified in termination, it is incorrect to decide on the acceptance of severance pay and notice, depending on the evidentiary situation. The court’s verdict was unanimously overturned. “
