Last-minute: The Supreme Court rejected the request for a salary increase, and bad news came to workers who wanted compensation. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, its precedent decision. It was ruled that reasons such as workers’ wages not being raised or emails not being replied to were not considered violations of anti-discrimination.
LAST MINUTE | Bad news for employees who resigned due to lack of labor wages
Workers working in private educational institutions were dismissed due to absenteeism despite being exempted. The victims filed a reemployment proceeding. While the case was pending, the facility brought the workers back to work. Workers resigned, claiming they were short on wages. The worker, whose claim was dismissed, filed a lawsuit in the Labor Court, claiming that he was under pressure, did not reply to his email, and had a friend’s salary increase but no salary increase. ..
Workers claimed to have been exposed to discrimination and legitimately terminated their employment contracts for these reasons, and demanded severance pay, compensation for discrimination, and collection of labor claims from the defendant. A lawyer at the defendant’s institution stated that the plaintiff was absent and filed a retroactive health report. A lawyer at an institution claiming that there was no discrimination against him in terms of wages, as seen in the pay slip showing the wages of employees who performed the same duties as the plaintiff, demanded that the plaintiff dismiss the unpaid accounts receivable. Did.
The court granted the workers’ rights, but …
The court ruled that the case was partially acceptable, stating that plaintiffs were not given salary increases to other workers, contrary to the principle of equality.
Jurisdiction: No damages will be paid
The defendant has appealed the decision. The Local Court of Appeals has decided to invalidate the Labor Court’s decision. When this decision was appealed, the Supreme Court’s Ninth Civil Assembly intervened. The Supreme Court ruled that workers who did not accept the request for a salary increase could not pay discrimination compensation.
The ruling said, “The principle of equal treatment is valid in all areas of law, and from a labor law perspective, it is a fair and objective reason. In this respect, the employer’s right to control is limited. For example, the prohibition of discrimination by employers prohibits arbitrary discrimination between workers in the workplace, but the obligation of equal treatment requires that all workers be placed in the same situation without discrimination. It is not intended to do, but to prevent different treatments for workers in equal positions. In a specific dispute, the plaintiff’s workers, despite rising wages for all other workers. He did not abandon the reemployment lawsuit he filed, for example, because he was treated differently by his employer, despite rising wages for all other workers, he sued for these reasons. His e-mail was not replied to and was pressured. He claimed to have been exposed to discrimination and demanded compensation as provided in Article 5 of the Labor Code. , Accepted because the increase given to other workers by the court of first instance was not given to the plaintiff, however, the results do not match the contents of the file. In order for the discriminatory compensation conditions set out in Article 4857 to occur, differences in treatment by employer must be based on reasons such as race, language, politics, etc. Thoughts, beliefs, and articles It should be interpreted narrowly. The plaintiff’s worker was unable to prove by method and sufficient evidence that he was discriminated against for possible reasons within the scope of this article. We cannot take into account reasons such as the wages not being raised or the mail not being replied as a non-discrimination breach. Therefore, the decision on compensation is clearly against the law and of the local appeals court. The decision had to be revoked.