Retirees' missing work-day issue resolved by Supreme Court ruling

Many citizens who continue their working lives after retirement suffer grievances due to employers reporting fewer premium days than actually worked. This issue, which is of great importance in terms of social security rights and legal protection, has gained a new dimension with the new ruling from the Court of Cassation.

A lawsuit filed by a painter has become a new source of hope for all retired employees in similar situations across the country. Although the worker in question worked continuously at a workplace between 2013 and 2019, the business owner reported him to the Social Security Institution (SGK) as having worked only 10 days in some months. Realizing the situation, the retired worker filed a lawsuit requesting the determination of his missing reported days and the establishment of his actual wages. The employer denied the allegations, arguing that the worker was employed on a part-time basis.

In the case heard at the Court of First Instance, existing evidence and statements from both parties were examined. As a result, it was determined that the worker actually worked 30 days per month and had a total of 325 missing days. The court ruled that these days should be entered into the system.

The situation was taken to the Regional Court of Justice upon the objections of the employer and the SGK. However, the appellate court rejected the case, ruling that there was no current legal interest in filing the lawsuit on the grounds that the worker's pension would not increase as a result of this determination.

The 10th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation opposed the appellate court's decision, stating that being insured is an indispensable right and that the determination of actual working days can be requested even if one is retired. However, when the appellate court insisted on its decision, the file was sent to the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation.

LANDMARK RULING FROM THE COURT OF CASSATION

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation found the plaintiff retired worker to be in the right and issued a landmark ruling with significant justification. The following important points were emphasized in the decision:

It was emphasized that insured employment is not just a salary-focused process, but also provides a legal status that concerns public order. No employee can accept working without insurance, even of their own volition, and cannot waive this right.

It was clearly stated that retired employees can file a service determination lawsuit within the scope of "legal interest," even if their premium payments do not provide an increase in their old-age pension. Missing reported days are of fundamental importance in protecting employees' rights in the event of future work accidents or occupational diseases.

Furthermore, it was emphasized that the actual working periods determined by the court should be taken as the basis for the calculation of severance and notice pay, as well as annual leave payments, including labor receivables. At this point, it was stated that the court's determination directly affects the total amount the employee is entitled to receive.

Finally, it was stated that restricting the right of retired employees to file lawsuits would encourage employers to engage in informal employment, which is contrary to regulations protecting the social security rights of society. It was underlined that it is essential to supervise such practices through the judiciary.

With this decision, the path has been cleared for the legal struggle of those who work after retirement against having their working days reported as incomplete. Experts emphasize that retired employees in similar situations can seek their rights and that this decision will set a precedent for judicial practice.