According to the decision of the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey (TİHEK), the place of duty of the person who started to work as a security guard in a company affiliated with the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality in 2018 was changed 5 times in a year. employment contract was terminated.
Won the case, not started to work
The security guard, who filed a reemployment lawsuit against the company, won the case. However, the company did not start the claimant by not complying with the court order.
Claiming that because he filed a lawsuit, the company and municipality officials blocked his right to petition, his photo was hung on guard towers, his phones were blocked, and the security guard applied to TİHEK.
The company, whose opinion was asked upon the application, argued that the plaintiff’s attitudes and behaviors disrupted the peace of work, and that his employment contract was terminated with just cause after his referral to the disciplinary committee.
TİHEK, at the end of its examination, decided that the prohibition of discrimination against the applicant had been violated and ruled that an administrative fine of 89 thousand 571 liras be imposed on the company, which is the highest amount within the scope of the administrative sanction powers of the board.
From the reasoning of the decision
In the decision of TİHEK, it was emphasized that everyone is equal before the law according to Article 10 of the Constitution and it was stated that all kinds of discrimination were prohibited.
In the decision, it was reminded that, pursuant to the Law on the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Turkey, the applicants claiming that the prohibition of discrimination has been violated must prove that the other party has not violated the prohibition of discrimination and the principle of equal treatment if they justify their claims.
In the aforementioned case, it was stated that there was no detection of “intimidation” other than the applicant’s allegations, and it was determined that the applicant was not started to work because he initiated various complaint procedures while the reemployment case was still ongoing, and it was stated that this was “victimization”.
The decision, which stated that the complained institution could not prove the opposite of this situation, included the following:
“Despite the strong indications and the existence of presumptive facts regarding the applicant’s allegations that he was not reemployed after the reemployment lawsuit and he was exposed to negative treatment, the respondent company failed to bring up anything proving that it did not violate the prohibition of discrimination and the principle of equal treatment. After the applicant’s reemployment lawsuit, It has been concluded that the applicant was not started to work on the grounds of his various complaints and petitions, and that the applicant was faced with negative treatment and victimization in order to prevent his claims within the scope of the right to petition and the freedom to seek justice, and in this respect, the prohibition of discrimination was violated.”
