İşçilik alacaklarında belirsiz alacak davasının uygulanabilirliği

Abstract

Davacidan dava acarken her zaman talep sonucunu tam ve kesin olarak belirlemesini beklemek mumkun degildir. Talep sonucunun belirlenememesi durumu davacinin kusurundan kaynaklanmiyorsa iddianin genisletilmesi yasagini mutlak bir sekilde uygulamak hakkaniyetli olmayacaktir. Zira bu yasagi mutlak bir sekilde uygulamak davacinin fazla yargilama gideri yapmasina alacaginin zamanasimina ugramasina veya alacagina isleyecek faizin gec baslamasina sebebiyet verecektir. Belirsiz alacak davasinin temel amaci da bu hakkaniyetsizligi gidermektir. Belirsiz alacak davasinin iscilik alacaklari bakimindan uygulanmasi ise ayri bir tartisma olusturmaktadir. Zira is hukukunun taraflarin mutlak esitligini kabul eden hukuk alanlarindan ayrilarak ayri bir nitelik kazanmasinin temel nedeni taraflar arasi esitlik ilkesinin isciler acisindan dogurdugu vahim sonuclardir. Dolayisiyla tartisma bir anlamda is hukukunun varolus nedeniyle ilgilidir. ulkemizde yaygin olan kayit disi istihdam gercege aykiri tutulan veya hic tutulmayan isyeri kayitlari ile bu kayitlarin isci ile paylasilmamasi gibi fiili durumlar belirsiz alacak davasinin is hukukundaki uygulamasini ayri bir inceleme konusu haline getirmektedir. Bununla beraber tum bu kayitlar isci ile paylasilsa dahi iscilik alacaklarinin hesap yonteminin tek bir kanunla ve acikca duzenlendigini soylemenin mumkun olmadigi ulkemizde orta duzeyde bilgiye sahip bir iscinin iscilik alacaklarini hesaplamasi da tartismanin bir diger boyutunu olusturmaktadir. Bu calismada tartismalar incelenirken belirsiz alacak davasinin is hukukunda uygulanmasina iliskin doktrindeki farkli gorusler celiskili Yargitay kararlari ve ozellikle 15/12/2017 tarihli Yargitay Ýctihadi Birlestirme Kurulu Karari inceleme konusu edilmistir.

In some situations, it is not likely that the amount and value of debt can be defined precisely by claimants. In the event that the claimant encounters such a situation without having any fault on defining the exact amount and value of debt, it is not fair to implement the ban on the expansion and alteration of claim because this situation can cause the plaintiff responsible for the burden of additional, amended or partial claims: limitation period, some kind of expenses such as interest, litigation etc. In this case, the main reason of legal action for unspecified claim amount is to provide equality. However, legal action for unspecified claim amount is a very controversial issue for wage claims arising under the employment agreement. Unlike law sources accepting the principle of "absolute equality", labor law does not accept this principle and classifies a different discipline in comparison to the other sources of law. The main reason of this contradiction is the harmful consequences arising from the principle of absolute equality performed in labor law cases. As a matter of fact, the discussion is about the purpose of labor law. In addition to aforementioned issues about the legal action for the unspecified claim amounts, other controversial matters related to this discussion are the illicit work which is prevalent in our country, office records that are contrary to the facts or not kept at all and not sharing these records with the employee. On the other hand, even if all these records are kept properly and shared with employees, another point of this discussion is whether the employee with an intermediate knowledge can or cannot calculate these compensations. In this Article, different doctrinal remarks about the implementation of "legal action for unspecified claim amount" in Labor Law, contradictory decisions of Judicial Council and especially the decision of Judicial Council General Assembly on the Unification of Judgements dated on December 15, 2017 have been subjected to research in this study the subjects of study.