Precedent Ruling from the Court of Cassation Regarding Overtime Calculation in 24-Hour Shifts

The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation reached a critical decision in a lawsuit filed by an employee working as an ambulance driver at a private hospital for overtime pay. It was ruled that in 24-hour shifts, an employee can work a maximum of 14 hours practically, and the 3 hours exceeding the daily 11 hours should be considered overtime work.

The Process Taken to the Labor Court

A young man working as an ambulance driver at a private hospital terminated his employment contract claiming that his overtime wages were not paid and applied to the Labor Court. The driver demanded the collection of severance pay, salary, bonuses, annual leave, overtime, and general holiday receivables.

The defendant company, on the other hand, defended that the contract was rightfully terminated on the grounds that the employee received warnings due to faulty accidents and did not come to work without an excuse.

Trial and Appellate Stage

The local court ruled that the overtime wage was not paid and that the employment contract was rightfully terminated, deciding for the payment of severance pay. The case was partially accepted.

The Regional Court of Justice approved the calculation method by accepting that the plaintiff worked on a basis of 24 hours of work and 24 hours of rest, could not take breaks due to urgent work in the health sector, and could not meet their sleep needs.

Precedent Ruling of the Court of Cassation

Upon the appeal of the file, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation initiated a review and made a new evaluation by recalling its established practices.

The supreme court emphasized that during the 24-hour working period, the employee can work a maximum of 14 hours practically, and decided that the 3 hours exceeding the 11 hours should be considered overtime work.

Grounds for Reversal and Payrolls

In the decision of the Court of Cassation, attention was drawn to the fact that the payrolls in the case file were not evaluated by the court, and it was stated that this situation was erroneous.

Additionally, it was stated that the days when the plaintiff was on annual leave should be excluded from the overtime pay calculation, and the decision of the Regional Court of Justice was unanimously reversed.