As it is known, in our law, courts giving different decisions regarding similar events deeply damages the principle of legal certainty and predictability. One of the most common situations where similar incidents can occur is when more than one worker is fired as a result of an incident at work. In this case, more than one worker may be dismissed based on the same facts, and the subject of the lawsuits filed by these workers is the same.
As a matter of fact, as a result of the termination of the employment contracts of 3 workers on the grounds that they slept at work, cases were filed by us as the representative of these 3 workers. Namely; In the workplace where cameras are located, 3 workers enter a part of the workplace that is not in the field of view of the camera and do their work together. However, the defendant employer terminated the employment contracts of all 3 workers, claiming that they were sleeping in a place that was not within the field of view of the camera. However, during the trial phase, he could not prove that the workers were sleeping in the area where there was no camera footage. As a result of the cases being brought to the Supreme Court, the case of one of the workers was accepted, while the cases of the other two were rejected. Here, the reason for dismissal of each worker is the same. Although the events were the same in the cases of these 3 workers, different decisions were given in different courts. While the case of one of the workers who were dismissed for the same reason was accepted, the cases of two of them were rejected. This situation violated the principle of legal certainty. For this reason, these decisions, which are contrary to the principle of legal certainty and uniformity in the trial, have been brought to the Constitutional Court by us.
These decisions violate the uniformity of the trial. High Courts are responsible for ensuring uniformity in practice by preventing different decisions on the same events. The fact that chambers within the Supreme Courts reach different conclusions in similar cases without providing a satisfactory justification creates probabilistic and contradictory results, such as that a decision will be approved if it falls to a certain chamber, and will be overturned if it is handled by another chamber. Reaching contradictory results, especially in cases filed by different persons in the same concrete event and legal situation, may contradict the principles of legal certainty and predictability. As a result of the aforementioned principles, judicial authorities are expected to provide a certain stability in their decisions in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. However, in the similar case we mentioned above, the events in question are exactly the same, as the reasons for the dismissal of the parties are based on the same event. In this case, the different decisions given by the Regional Courts of Justice are clearly against the principles of legal certainty and predictability, and this situation is against the right to legal reliability and equity.
In the legal system, there must be “reasonable stability” in court decisions regarding similar events. Giving different decisions regarding similar events not only prevents the fulfillment of rights, but also damages the trust in justice due to the lack of stability in court decisions. As a matter of fact, although our client worked together with his colleague A. A., both workers were dismissed on the same day on the grounds that they slept during shift hours, and although it was decided that the employment contract of the other worker was not based on just cause, two decisions were made stating that the client’s employment contract was terminated based on just cause. There is no uniformity among them. In this case, it is understood that the client’s right to a fair trial has been severely violated and the principle of legal security and certainty has been violated due to the different decisions given against similar events. Stability in court decisions can be described as “the courts giving decisions that are consistent with the provisions they made in their previous decisions”. (Köküsarı, İsmail (2015) Legal Security Principle in Constitutional Law, Ankara, Adalet Yayınevi, p. 116 and 117.) It is legal to resolve similar cases in a similar way. It also helps to realize the principles of equality, certainty, impartiality and legal certainty in life. ensuring stability in court decisions; It is required by the principles of equality, justice and legal security. For this reason, we have applied to the Constitutional Court to annul the unfair and unjustified decision about our client.