Işçinin ücretinin ödenmemesi nedeniyle iş görme edimini yerine getirmekten kaçınması ve çalışmadığı süre için ücret talep edememesi

In the judgment analysis, after the concept of wage, which is one the most significant concepts of the Labor Law, and the importance of the time of paying wage is analyzed by means of taking into consideration the essentials approved by the Comparative Law in the perspective of individual and collective labor law relations; the judgment of Supranational Court of Appeal that states the worker who did not carry his act of working with the reason that his wage has not been paid can not get wage for the period he did not work. According to the author, while the motives shown in the judgment are partly appropriate, the fact that the subject was concluded without an assessment of systematical integrity with the judicial parameters applicable in the concrete conflicts renders the judicial solution controversial and considerably removes the effectiveness of the so-called article (Lab. Law. Art.34/1). Hence, firstly, by referring the Comparative Law the judicial ground of worker’s right to avoid carrying out his duty is identified and in this context, the real meaning of the Labor Law article no. 34/1 is clarified. Secondly, the judicial ground for the wage demand in the period that the worker avoids carrying out his act to work is searched in details in the context of comparative law. In conclusion, it is emphasized that there is a necessity to evaluate the legal foundations which can require to reach a more appropriate and different conclusion than that of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

,

İşçi Ücreti ,

İş Görme ,

Ücret ,