Recording colleagues' voices the reason for being fired
A worker who allegedly recorded private conversations and conversations of his colleagues in a private company with his own cell phone was placed in front of the door. Bad news came from the Supreme Court of Appeals to the worker who knocked on the court's door.
Supreme Court; ruled that no compensation should be paid to a worker who was dismissed for recording private conversations and conversations of his colleagues with his mobile phone.
Learning that he was fired, the worker knocked on the door of the Labor Court.
Stating that he was dismissed without a justified reason, the employee demanded the collection of severance and notice compensation, last month's wage, overtime, national holidays and general holiday receivables from the defendant. The defendant employer demanded the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated for a just cause, and the plaintiff did not have any receivables. Based on the evidence collected and the expert report, the court decided to accept the case partially. The decision was appealed by the defendant attorney.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals made a precedent decision. In the decision of the Supreme Court, where it was emphasized that the plaintiff secretly recorded the private conversations and conversations of his colleagues with his mobile phone; "It is understood that a written defense was requested from the plaintiff worker before termination, but the plaintiff worker did not defend, and the employment contract was terminated within a period of 6 business days.
In case of direct intervention and complaint in the private life of colleagues, it is obvious that the act subject to dissolution, which constitutes a crime, has the weight of justified termination. It is understood from the information and documents in the file that the court's acceptance that this situation can only be the subject of valid dissolution when the act is accepted is not appropriate. As a result, since the defendant employer is right for termination, the claimant's severance and notice pay requests should be rejected, but the acceptance is incorrect.
It was decided to quash the court verdict unanimously. "