The Turkish Court of Cassation has recently gave an important decision that closely concerns the employee-employer relations in Turkey. According to the mentioned decision, it is being accepted that the workers could show a wide variety of evidences before the court regarding the proof of his/her overtime hours. The ruling has also point out the right for justified decision.
With the decision Application No. 2022/5341 and Decision No. 2022/6987, which is being published in the Turkish Official Gazette dated 09.08.2022, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation has ruled that the employee have the right to show variety of evidences for proof of his/her overtime works.
In the case, after the insured, who works as a part-time occupational safety specialist and has a remuneration, could not receive his wages, and initiated enforcement proceedings without judgment against the defendant employer, the objection made by the employer was rejected and the employer demanded a 20 percent execution denial indemnity against the employer. In this case, the Court of Cassation decided to make an action of “reversal for the benefit of the law” in favor of the worker.
In the decision, it was taken into account that the service determination of the employee, who was an occupational safety expert in the concrete incident, was to be proved with documents such as the personnel assignment form taken from the public ISGKATIP system, Social Security Institution’s service statement, Occupational Health and Safety Protocol, and documents obtained from the relevant authorities in the case that the court asked the Ministry of Labor and Social Security.
The Court of Cassation has pointed out that “although the evaluation of the evidence in the decision belongs to the judge, the right to be heard by the parties is a right that includes the evaluation of the court by taking into account the explanations,evidences, documents and the concrete and clear justification of the decision”. It has been emphasized that the fact that the court has not clarified the justification of the rule in the decision text, this has constituted a violation of the legal right to be heard.