Supreme Court has the final word: They will also be able to receive notice pay

A married couple working at a horse farm applied to the judiciary, claiming that their employment was terminated without any compensation. One of the plaintiffs, S.M., stated that he took care of 15 horses, a cow, and two dogs on the farm, and was responsible for cleaning the stables and gardening. His wife, Z.M., stated that she was in charge of cooking and housework.

Claiming that they had worked continuously for approximately five years, the couple argued that their employment contracts were terminated unfairly and without notice, and demanded the payment of their severance and notice pay, as well as compensation for overtime, weekly rest days, national and public holidays, and annual leave.

EMPLOYER REQUESTED DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS

The defendant farm owner argued that S.M. only worked as a groom and that his claims could not be evaluated under Labor Law No. 4857. He claimed that the daily care of the horses was carried out in limited time periods, and that the plaintiff had free time for most of the day, which he spent tending to his own vegetable garden.

The employer requested that the case be dismissed, stating that Z.M. only worked in domestic services within the farmhouse.

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE DISMISSED THE CASE

Reviewing the file, the 1st Labor Court evaluated that S.M. worked as a groom and that the provisions of the Labor Law could not be applied due to the nature of the work performed. The court also stated that Z.M. worked in domestic services and therefore did not fall under the scope of Law No. 4857, rejecting the claims of both plaintiffs.

PRECEDENT DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT

Upon appeal of the decision, the file came before the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Chamber determined that the witness statements regarding the termination of the employment contracts did not contain concrete information, and that no report supporting the claim of absenteeism had been submitted to the file by the employer.

The decision included the following statements:

"The plaintiff and defendant witnesses heard during the trial do not have concrete or first-hand knowledge regarding the termination of the employment contracts. No absenteeism report regarding the days the plaintiffs were allegedly absent from work was submitted to the file by the defendant employer. Considering these issues and the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiffs' employment contracts were terminated by the defendant employer, but the employer, who bears the burden of proof, could not prove that the termination was based on just cause. In this case, considering the nature of the work performed, although the plaintiffs are not entitled to severance pay, they are entitled to notice pay in accordance with Articles 432 and 438 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, and therefore, the aforementioned claim should be calculated and ruled upon."

RIGHT TO NOTICE PAY CONFIRMED

The Supreme Court ruled that while the plaintiffs could not be entitled to severance pay due to the nature of the work they performed, they could receive notice pay under the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations because it could not be proven that their employment contracts were terminated for just cause. Thus, the case was overturned on the grounds that the notice pay should be calculated and adjudicated.

News Source: İHA