Retirement calculation changed: Supreme Court ruling on apprenticeship insurance

The Supreme Court has issued a notable ruling in a case regarding the inclusion of apprenticeship periods in retirement calculations. The High Court overturned the decision made by the local court and the appellate court in favor of the plaintiff and sent the file back for re-evaluation.

FILED A LAWSUIT FOR APPRENTICESHIP PERIOD

The plaintiff claimed that they worked as an apprentice at the Machinery and Chemical Industry Corporation (MKE) between 1987 and 1989 at the age of 16, and that they were actively involved in production activities during this period, requesting that these periods be considered within the scope of long-term insurance branches taken into account for retirement. To this end, they filed a service determination lawsuit in the labor court.

LOCAL COURT ACCEPTED THE REQUEST

The court of first instance accepted the case, assessing that the plaintiff worked primarily in production-oriented jobs during the relevant period and that the working time carried the nature of actual work rather than vocational training activities. The Regional Court of Justice also found this decision appropriate.

FILE MOVED TO THE SUPREME COURT

Upon the appeal of the decision, the file came before the 10th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court. In its decision, the Chamber emphasized that the right to social security is under constitutional guarantee and that cases regarding the determination of insurance periods must be examined with special sensitivity.

According to the report by Ahmet Kıvanç from Habertürk, the decision recalled that, according to the provisions of the Social Insurance Law No. 506, the status of being insured is acquired with the establishment of a service contract and the commencement of work. However, it was pointed out that the same law clearly stipulates that provisions regarding maternity, disability, old age, and death insurance cannot be applied to the apprenticeship period.

NATURE OF APPRENTICESHIP RELATIONSHIP MUST BE EVALUATED

The Supreme Court stated that in determining whether a person is considered an apprentice, one should look not only at the work performed but also at the nature of the working relationship. The decision stated that the primary purpose of an apprenticeship contract is to teach a profession or craft.

However, it was noted that in cases where the person participates directly in production at the workplace and the training element remains in the background, the apprenticeship relationship could become debatable.

TRAINING ACTIVITIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED INSURED WORK

In the Supreme Court decision, it was stated that the participation of apprentices in production and application activities is a natural part of the training process. It was noted that the fact that these activities resemble the work performed by insured workers does not, by itself, demonstrate the existence of a service contract.

The decision stated that these works carried out within the scope of education cannot be evaluated as work based on a service contract, and therefore it is not possible to acquire the status of being insured due to these periods.

News Source: 12punto