Extended Summary

Labor claims cases are among the most common labor disputes encountered in practice. In a lawsuit filed by an employee – who is in a weak position in the employment relationship- against the employer for the collection of wages and other labor claims alleged to be owed, the employee must prove the material they put forward. The employer, on the other hand, may rely on evidence to support their defenses against the claims raised in the statement of claim. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the evidence that the parties may rely on may consist of either conclusive evidence or discretionary evidence.

In a labor claim case, the parties will submit their claims and defenses regarding the subject of the dispute, and the court will attempt to form an opinion as to the accuracy or validity of those claims and defenses. Through evidence – which serves as the means of proving the truth of the facts asserted by the employee and the employer- it becomes clear whether the parties’ claims and defenses are justified, and the disputed facts at issue are resolved.

It is quite common in labor claims cases for the parties to rely on workplace records as evidence in order to resolve the disputed facts at issue between them and ultimately arrive at the material truth. As discussed in detail in our study, labor legislation imposes an obligation on employers to keep documents and records. This obligation relates to ensuring that the factual and legal circumstances arising during the establishment, continuation, and termination of the employment relationship between the employee and the employer are documented in a systematic, accurate, and verifiable manner through certain documents and records. Under labor law, the employer is expected to act in accordance with this obligation and maintain records that are complete and in compliance with established procedures. However, in practice, this obligation is often not fulfilled adequately, and the sanctions for non-compliance are not sufficiently deterrent. Despite this obligation- which was introduced in order to prevent unregistered employment in working life- it is observed that workplace records kept kept by the employer may not reflect the truth and may not be prepared in compliance with legal requirements. aware of this risk, employees may still rely on such records in the employer’s possession in order to prove the claims stated in their petition and to obtain a ruling in their favor.

In terms of the burden of proof, the employee must submit the evidence in their possession along with the complaint and must have requested that any documents and evidence to be obtained from other sources be submitted to the case file. In a claim for wages, if the employee relies on records held by the defendant employer as evidence, there will be no change in the employee’s burden of proof; however, the employer will be required to fulfill the duty to produce such evidence. If the conditions set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the obligation to produce documents are met, the court will order the employer to produce the workplace records in their possession. If the employer submits the requested documents to the court, they will have fulfilled the burden of producing substitute evidence, and the judge will render a decision after evaluating the submitted records and other evidence. If the employer fails to submit the requested records, a decision adverse to the employer regarding that matter will be rendered due to the failure to meet the burden of proof. The common misconception encountered in practice—that the burden of proof shifts to the employer simply because the records requested by the court are not submitted—is incorrect. While there is no such thing as the burden of proof shifting between the parties, the employer faces the risk of a ruling against them because they have failed to meet the burden of proof by not submitting the workplace records.

Finally, it must be clarified whether the provisions of Article 220 of the Code of Civil Procedure still apply in cases where the employee’s actions or negligence contributed to the employer’s failure to maintain records in accordance with the law or to submit them to the court. The absence of records at the workplace is not solely due to the employer’s own conduct but is sometimes also done at the employee’s request. In practice, it is frequently encountered that an employee fails to register for social security to avoid the threat of garnishment or intentionally requests that their salary be underreported on pay stubs. If the employee relies on the workplace records based on the existence of such a situation, the employer—who fails to meet the burden of proof due to violations of the record-keeping obligation or the inability to produce the requested documents—will face the risk of a ruling against them. First and foremost, while it might be argued that the employee cannot derive a favorable outcome for themselves based on the employer’s conduct—which violates the principle that no one may assert a right based on their own fault, as per Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) and Article 29 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK)—and should not rely on the employer’s failure to meet the burden of proof, ultimately, since the employer’s failure to comply with the statutory record-keeping obligation also constitutes a breach of the principle of good faith, I believe a decision should be rendered against the employer regarding the alleged facts.