Groundbreaking Decision from the Supreme Court in Trade Union Compensation: Secret Voice Recording Considered Legal Evidence!
Ankara – Supreme Court 9. of the Legal Department 2018 The decision given in 2014, which constitutes a strong precedent in the field of labor law (E. 2016/34331, K. 2018/780), provided significant support to workers' struggle to protect their union rights. Apartment, A worker who claims that he was dismissed for union reasons, meeting with the employer representative secretly recording as legal evidence by accepting, to the worker both reinstatement and 1 annual gross salary ruled to pay union compensation amounting to.
Driver Worker's Claim: “Leave Union” Pressure and Mobbing
Case, a worker working as a driver, It was filed with the allegation that he was put under pressure by the employer official after becoming a member of the union and therefore his employment contract was unfairly terminated.. Worker, presented to the court in secret audio recording, proved that the workplace official took the following actions:
-
Trying to find out who attends union meetings,
-
clearly to the plaintiff “leave the union” do not pressure,
-
“If you leave the union, we will take you from here” promise,
-
Often “Don't you want to work in this job??” Applying mobbing with expressions such as.
Domestic court, Although he ordered reinstatement, He rejected this request, noting that this audio recording was sufficient for union compensation..
The Supreme Court's Striking Determination: “The Purpose of Creating Evidence Is Not Against the Law”
The Supreme Court, which reviewed the appeal of the file 9. Legal Department, The local court overturned its decision and made the following determination as a precedent::
“The purpose of sound recording, It is to create evidence in the worker's favor to prove his claim for union compensation.. Therefore, it does not constitute illegal evidence.”
this decision, worker's, His attempt to prove a situation that occurred between him and the employer official that would justify him., “violation of privacy” It means that it does not constitute the crime. Apartment, took into account the difficulty of proving union rights and the worker's effort to fulfill the burden of proof.
Final Decision: Reinstatement and Heavy Union Compensation
Following the Supreme Court's reversal decision, the case was heard again and the following historical decisions were made in favor of the worker.:
-
Invalidity of Termination and Reinstatement: It was decided to reinstate the employee.
-
1 Union Compensation in the Amount of Annual Gross Wage: Worker, regardless of whether the job is started or not 1 will receive a heavy union compensation equal to his gross annual salary.
-
Idle Time Fee: 4 It was decided to pay the idle time fee and other financial rights for up to a month..
