Precedent-Setting Ruling from the Court of Cassation Preventing Duplicate Payments in Employee Claims

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation evaluated the inclusion of 7.5 hours of work performed on a weekend rest day into both the weekend rest day pay and the overtime calculation simultaneously as a duplicate payment. With this ruling, double payment to the employee for the same working period has been prevented.

Application Process to the Labor Court

A source master who claimed to have been unfairly dismissed applied to the Labor Court, requesting the payment of severance and notice pay, as well as annual leave, overtime, national holiday, general holiday, and weekend rest day wages.

During the court proceedings, the employee claimed that the employment contract was unjustly terminated by the employer and that they did not use the annual leave they earned throughout their employment period.

Court and Appellate Stage

The defendant employer requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that the employment contract was terminated based on a just cause, that the employee did not perform overtime work, and that they used their annual leaves.

While the court of first instance ruled that the termination was unfair and accepted severance and notice pay, the Regional Court of Justice overturned the decision and ruled in favor of accepting the lawsuit.

Review by the Court of Cassation

Upon the defendant party's appeal of the decision, the file was brought before the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, and the high court examined the issue in detail.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that the employee's weekend rest day wage was additionally requested and that this request was adjudicated by the court.

Emphasis on Duplicate Payment

In the Court of Cassation's ruling, it was clearly emphasized that paying both weekend rest day and overtime wages for the same working period would lead to a duplicate payment.

Stating that the 7.5-hour period corresponding to the worked weekend rest day must be excluded from the overtime calculation, the local court decision was found to be erroneous and was reversed.