The Supreme Court signed a precedent decision for Turkish citizens working in a Turkish company operating abroad. By precedent, expatriate workers will collect severance and notice pay in accordance with the laws of the country where they work.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that the labor receivables of Turkish citizens working in a Turkish company abroad should be calculated according to the law of the foreign country where they work.
The worker, who works as a locomotive operator in HEPP and dam construction in a foreign country for a net salary of 863 euros, knocked on the door of the Labor Court on the grounds that his receivables were not paid. The plaintiff worker claimed that he worked 7 days a week between 19.00-07.00, including weekdays, national holidays and general holidays, and that wages were not paid for these works.
He demanded the collection of severance and notice pay and some labor receivables, stating that his annual leaves were not used and his wages were not paid during his working period, that the employment contract was terminated by the defendants unjustly and without notice, and that severance pay and notice indemnity were not paid, however. The defendant company denied the allegations.
The court ruled that the case be partially accepted. The defendant company appealed the decision. The District Court of Appeals accepted the defendant’s objection. Upon this, when the plaintiff worker appealed the decision, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court intervened. Having signed a precedent decision, the Board added a new dimension to the discussions of expatriate workers on claims.
The decision said:
“In the concrete dispute, it is clear that the ordinary partnership formed by the defendant companies is an organization established and registered in accordance with Albanian laws. In the foreign employment contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant companies, the rights and obligations of the parties in the employment relationship are determined by reference to the Albanian legislation, as well as in the article 9 of the contract. On the other hand, the plaintiff worked only at the defendant’s workplace in Albania during the entire service period within the framework of the said employment contract, and in this case, it is fixed that the usual workplace is Albania, where the employee actually does his job. Considering these issues, since there is a choice of law agreement between the parties within the framework of Article 27/1 of the MÖHUK and at the same time it is considered that Albanian law is the customary workplace law, this law should be applied to the dispute. work; It consists of resolving the dispute in accordance with Albanian Law, by obtaining a report from an expert expert in Albanian law, if necessary, by the court. As a result; It was necessary to come to a conclusion with the wrong determination of the law to be applied in the dispute.”