[ad_1]
A receptionist working in a hotel met a foreign client who entered the hotel and took her to her room. The receptionist, who took the customer to the taxi the next day, experienced the shock of her life after a while. No compensation was paid to the reception, who was fired from the hotel where he worked for 7 years, with the claim to “be honest with the client.” The victim’s receptionist, who went to the Labor Court, alleged that the insurance premiums were not paid above actual wages and that the workplace was examined by SSI inspectors. He claimed that 11 workers, including himself, petitioned the employer and demanded that insurance premiums be paid above actual wages, and that the defendant employer began pressuring the plaintiff to quit the job. Claiming that he showed a foreign client his room, then he went to the reception, then the plaintiff checked the client’s room when the client came downstairs, and the defendant employer terminated his employment using this excuse, and severance pay and notice, payment overtime, national holiday, and general holiday pay Demanded that I receive weekly vacation pay, annual vacation pay. The defendant employer noted that the case was unfair and malicious, that the plaintiff entered into a close and private relationship with the client within business hours, and that the plaintiff was showing up close and candid images with this client from the camera recordings on the Workplace. Alleging that the plaintiff left his workplace, then went to the defendant’s workplace room with the client and spent 20 minutes there, the employment contract was legitimately terminated by the defendant employer for these reasons, and the demands of the Plaintiff were defeated and demanded the rejection of the case.
The court listens to the parties; He ordered the partial acceptance of the case based on the evidence gathered and the expert report. When the accused hotel operator appealed the decision, the Ninth Legal Department of the Court of Cassation intervened. In the decision of the department; It was pointed out that in subsection (II) of article 25 of the Labor Law numbered 4857, the cases that do not comply with the ethics and good will standards are listed. It was recalled that defense in case of justified termination is not a legal obligation. The decision included the following statements:
“In the specific dispute, the footage presented to the file by the defendant employer and the CD containing the recordings of the hotel security cameras was resolved by the expert and the day the plaintiff was working; It was observed that the client who entered the hotel at 02:10 at night and the applicant were interested and approached in the lobby. It was determined that they entered the hotel room with the client and stayed in the room for 22 minutes, the plaintiff had sincerely put the client into a taxi, then returned to the hotel and reentered the same room. By the court; While it is understood that the plaintiff has intimate footage with the client during working hours in the expert examination carried out on the CD on the camera recordings at the defendant’s workplace; The defendant employer did not take any action to defend the plaintiff with respect to this behavior. According to the constituted Supreme Court of Appeals, it was decided to accept the claim for compensation for dismissal and notice on the grounds that the termination of the employment contract without the defense of the worker is solely for this reason, and the employment contract for an indefinite time It cannot be terminated without taking the defense of the worker regarding his act considered grounds for termination. As explained, behaviors that shake the employee’s trust and that contradict integrity and commitment give the employer the right to terminate the contract. The plaintiff’s conduct contrary to integrity and loyalty has been determined by the court, and in this case, the lack of defense of the worker does not exclude that the termination is justified. Thus; While the court should decide on the rejection of the claimant’s severance pay and notification of pay claims, it was inappropriate to decide on acceptance with a wrong assessment and required revocation. The court’s decision was unanimous. “
For detailed information …
