33-year leave allowance returned by the Supreme Court

Following the death of N.U., who worked as an accounting and financial affairs manager in a private company for 33 years, his family applied to the Labor Court for the collection of labor receivables.

The plaintiffs stated that N.U.'s last monthly net wage was 15 thousand TL, but since part of the salary was paid from the bank and the rest was paid by hand, the earnings reported to the Social Security Institution were lower. The family claimed that N.U. could not use most of his annual leave due to his busy work schedule; He demanded that severance pay, minimum subsistence allowance and annual leave wages be collected from the employer.

The defendant employer stated that N.U. provided consultancy services to the company even after his retirement. Arguing that the employee was unwell for a significant part of the second term and used his annual leaves during this period, the employer claimed that payments were made as an offset to the unused leaves and severance pay.

The Labor Court accepted the family's request, stating that the employment contract ended due to death and that it could not be proven that severance pay had been previously paid. It also found the annual leave fee request appropriate, as the employer could not prove that the annual leave was used or that the leave fees were paid after the termination of the employment contract.

The objections of the employer, who appealed the decision, were rejected by the Regional Court of Justice. Thereupon, the file was moved to the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals.

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which examined the file, pointed out that the calculation made by assuming that no leave was taken during the entire 33-year working period was incorrect.

In the Supreme Court decision, it was stated that in the petition, N.U. did not use all of her annual leave, but a large part of it. In the decision, which referred to Article 25 of Law No. 6100, it was emphasized that the judge cannot automatically take into account facts not put forward by the parties, except for the exceptions stipulated in the law.

In the decision, N.U.'s duty as accounting and financial affairs manager in the company was also evaluated. It was pointed out that the employee, due to his title and position, has the authority to issue or have records and documents regarding annual leaves prepared.

The Supreme Court, by evaluating the statements in the petition together with the employee's duty at the workplace, ruled that one-third of the annual leave right should be considered used and the remaining leave pay should be calculated accordingly. It was stated that the first instance court made a decision contrary to the rule of dependence on facts and that the verdict should be overturned.

The Supreme Court also pointed out that there was an incomplete review regarding the determination of the employee's real wage. In the decision, it was stated that bank records, payrolls, statements of party witnesses and wage investigation results should be re-evaluated together with the entire file.

The Supreme Court noted that the decision given with incomplete examination was a reason for reversal.