A Worker Is Responsible For Their Signature Even If They Cannot Read Or Write
Supreme Court of Appeals, 22nd Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2012/3328
Decision Number: 2012/8399
“Case Law Text”
COURT: Izmir 9th Labor Court
DATE: 02/13/2012
NUMBER: 2011/556-2012/76
The plaintiff claimed that he worked at the defendant’s workplace between May 6, 2005, and May 13, 2011, and that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer on the grounds of absence. He sought the payment of seniority and notice compensation, as well as a portion of his outstanding wages.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff left the workplace on June 8, 2011, after arguing with other employees working at the workplace and did not return to work in the following days without a valid excuse, and that the employment contract was terminated based on the justified reason of absence, requesting that the claim be dismissed.
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court ruled to partially accept the claim on the grounds that the defendant was unjustified in terminating the employment contract.
The defendant appealed the decision.
1- According to the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals outside the scope of the following clause are unfounded.
2- There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff employee worked overtime.
The employee claiming to have worked overtime is responsible for proving this claim. The rules regarding payroll records apply here as well. Payroll records bearing the employee’s signature are considered conclusive evidence until proven to be forged. In other words, unless the forgery of the payroll record is alleged and proven, it is assumed that the overtime pay shown on the signed payroll record has been paid.
Workplace records, especially documents showing entry and exit from the workplace, and internal workplace correspondence, constitute evidence regarding the proof of overtime work. However, if overtime work cannot be proven with written documents, the parties must reach a conclusion based on witness statements. In addition, certain general facts known to everyone may also be taken into account at this point. Whether overtime has been worked should also be investigated based on the nature and intensity of the work actually performed by the employee.
If it is understood from the signed payroll that overtime pay has been paid, it is not possible for the employee to claim that they actually worked more overtime. However, if the employee has a reservation that their overtime pay is higher, proof of working more than what appears on the pay slip can be provided by any means of evidence. If the pay slips are signed and without reservations, the employee must prove in writing that they worked more than what is stated on the pay slip. If the employee did not sign the payroll, but payments of varying amounts each month, including overtime pay, were made through a bank, the absence of a reservation means that it must be proven with written evidence that overtime work was performed in excess of what was paid.
In the specific case, the signed payrolls submitted by the defendant for the months of November and December 2010 and January, February, April, and May 2011 show that overtime pay was accrued, and the amounts accrued on the payrolls were deposited into the plaintiff’s bank account and paid without reservation. Although the explanatory section of the expert report, which formed the basis of the ruling, stated that these months for which overtime pay was accrued should be excluded from the calculation, it is seen that the aforementioned period was not excluded when the calculation was made. The ruling based on the erroneous expert report necessitated its reversal.
3-The other dispute between the parties concerns whether the employee is entitled to wages for unused leave periods.
Article 59 of Law No. 4857 stipulates that if the employment contract is terminated for any reason, the employee shall be paid wages for unused annual leave periods based on their last salary. The termination of the employment contract is a prerequisite for the conversion of annual leave entitlement into wages. In this regard, the manner of termination of the contract and whether it is based on just cause is irrelevant.
The burden of proof regarding the use of annual leave rests with the employer. The employer must prove that annual leave has been used by means of a signed leave record or equivalent document. The employer, who bears the burden of proof in this regard, may offer the employee an oath.
In the specific case, the annual leave register presented by the defendant contains the plaintiff’s signatures indicating that he used the forty-two days of annual leave to which he was entitled based on his length of service. The fact that the plaintiff is illiterate is also confirmed by the content of the warning notices given to the plaintiff by the employer prior to the termination. Since the conditions stipulated in Article 206 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 were not met, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s signatures in the annual leave record were invalid and awarded annual leave pay for the forty-two-day period.
The witness Oruç Budanır, who is the plaintiff’s spouse, stated that the plaintiff took fifteen days of annual leave during his employment period. In his statement regarding the evidence presented by the defendant employer, the plaintiff stated that the signatures on the pay slips were not his, but he did not claim that the signatures in the annual leave register were not his, nor did he defend himself by claiming that they had been obtained by fraud.
The rule stipulated in Article 206 of Law No. 6100 regarding the form and conditions for the preparation of sealed, fingerprinted, and marked documents is not a form of validity but relates to the form of proof. Therefore, the form of regulation stipulated in the aforementioned article is only relevant if the seal, fingerprint, or special mark is denied; in this respect, if the fingerprint is acknowledged, the fingerprint document is considered valid even if it has not been certified in accordance with Article 206 of the Procedure. A document signed or marked without being read should be accepted as a valid document in terms of the principle of trust. This is because a person who signs or affixes their fingerprint to a document, even if they have no knowledge of its content, cannot subsequently claim that the document is invalid. In view of this established situation and considering the factual and legal circumstances explained above, it is inappropriate to decide to accept the claim for annual leave pay when it should be rejected.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 02.05.2012 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons stated above and that the appeal fee paid in advance should be refunded to the relevant party upon request.