SUMMARY: It is not possible for the Bank Branch Manager to claim overtime wages.

22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation

E.2017/13338 K.2018/1735 T.05.02.2018

Summary of the plaintiff's claim:

 The plaintiff's attorney stated that his employment contract was terminated by the employer, that they filed a reemployment lawsuit with the 2012/1018 main file of the ... 6th Labor Court, and that his client was not hired despite applying within the period of the decision, and requested severance, notice, compensation for not starting work, overtime, annual leave and bonus receivables.

Summary of the Respondent's response:

 The defendant's attorney declared that all receivables were paid when the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.

Summary of the court decision:

 According to the evidence collected and the expert report, the court partially accepted the lawsuit.

Appeal:

 The decision was appealed by the defendant within due time.

Rationale:

 1-According to the writings in the case, the collected evidence and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, it is necessary to reject the defendant's appellate objections other than those covered by the following paragraph.

 2- There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff worker worked overtime or not.

 In the concrete case, the plaintiff employee worked as a branch manager at the defendant workplace between 16.12.1986-18.10.2012. In the expert report constituting the basis of the judgment of the court, the overtime receivable was calculated by accepting that the plaintiff worked 44.5 hours in total, consisting of 8 hours a day between 09.00-18.00 hours on 2 days of the week and 28.5 hours a day between 09.00-20.00 hours on 3 days of the week; and 5.5 hours on 2 Saturdays a month, except for a half-hour rest between 10.00-16.00 hours, and worked 50 hours for 2 weeks in a month and worked 5 hours overtime.

 According to the file content, it is understood that the plaintiff works as a branch manager, considering the witness statements of the parties, the nature of the work performed, the duty of the plaintiff and the scope of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff is in a position to determine his overtime himself, and it is erroneous to accept the overtime receivable instead of rejecting it.

CONCLUSION

It was unanimously decided on 05.02.2018 that the appealed decision shall be DISMISSED for the reasons shown above, and the prepaid appeal fee shall be returned to the relevant party upon request.