Workplace records are written documents prepared by the employer to determine the working order of the workplace and to reveal the daily, weekly, or monthly working hours of the employee. For example, attendance records showing the entry and exit times of the workplace, email records, internal correspondence, work schedules, overtime sheets, tachograph records, GPS records, GPRS records, service record forms, announcements made by the employer, password records for computer use, log records, and similar evidence.
Attendance records, which show the entry and exit times of the workplace, can be described as timesheets that indicate the actual working hours of the employee.
Employee's Signature on Attendance Records
The Supreme Court has established that even if the employee's signature is not present on workplace records, these records are still considered valid. In the decision of the Supreme Court's 7th Civil Chamber, 2013/4298 E., 2013/2137 K., dated 04.03.2013:
“In the present case, monthly attendance records for the working days at the workplace are included in the file. In the expert report, which the court based its decision on, the calculations were made according to the statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses because the monthly attendance records prepared by the defendant employer did not bear the plaintiff's signature. The defendant workplace is a municipal institution, and the lack of a signature on the attendance records does not invalidate these records. Moreover, the evaluation of evidence in this regard belongs to the court, not the expert. The expert can present alternative calculations based on whether the attendance records are accepted or not. The expert's disregard for the attendance records exceeds his authority. According to Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law, the contrary of the attendance record, which is an official document, must be proven with another record or document of equal strength. The court should have considered the attendance records, approved and regularly maintained by the officials of the defendant municipality, in its decision regarding the public holiday claims. The court's decision, made with incomplete examination and erroneous evaluation, is incorrect.”
The Supreme Court stated that the absence of the plaintiff's signature on the attendance records of the defendant municipality's workplace does not invalidate these records. However, the contrary of these written attendance records can only be proven with another record or document of equal strength.
In a similar vein, the Supreme Court's 9th Civil Chamber, 2013/27355 E., 2013/23747 K., dated 27.12.2013:
“The file contains card reading records showing the plaintiff's entry and exit times. These records were not positively or negatively evaluated by the expert. The court did not consider these records, reasoning that they did not match the statements of the plaintiff and defendant witnesses, did not bear the plaintiff's signature, and were not kept by another company outside the plaintiff's company. However, these records often show exits from the workplace after normal working hours. Since the entries and exits at the workplace are made using a card system, it is quite natural that the plaintiff's signature is not on these records. Therefore, for the period covered by the card reading records, calculations should be made based on these records; for periods not covered by these records, calculations should be made as they are now, considering the plaintiff's overtime and national holiday and general holiday pay claims. The plaintiff's lack of appeal should also be considered, and the validity of the termination due to unpaid labor claims should be re-evaluated based on whether the plaintiff is entitled to overtime and national holiday and general holiday pay.”
The Supreme Court essentially stated that the absence of the employee's signature on the attendance records showing the workplace entry and exit times does not invalidate these records by itself. It is also natural for the employee's signature to be absent on these records, given the card system used for entries and exits. Therefore, calculations should be based on these records for the period they cover.
Consistency of Attendance Records
In practice, attendance records play an important role in calculating overtime pay. The absence of signatures on attendance records does not invalidate these records, and the contrary of these records for the period they cover can only be proven with written evidence. In other words, the existence of attendance records means that the contrary of the period these records cover cannot be proven with witness evidence.
However, it is important to note that attendance records must be consistent with the entire case file and free of contradictions. For example, if annual leave documents submitted by the employer show that the employee was on annual leave or documents submitted by the employee show that the employee was on medical leave, and these situations are not reflected in the attendance records, this inconsistency makes the attendance records contradictory. In such cases, the attendance records cannot be relied upon as evidence.
In the Supreme Court's 9th Civil Chamber decision, 2012/28343 E., 2014/22155 K., dated 27.06.2014:
“There is consistency between the attendance records and the documents showing the employee’s leave. The court did not ask the plaintiff about these documents. First, the validity of the mentioned attendance sheets should be considered, and it should be investigated whether there is any contradiction between these records and the other documents in the file. These issues should be addressed in the reasoning of the decision. If the plaintiff accepts these attendance records or if it is determined that the records are consistent with other information and documents, the plaintiff’s overtime and national holiday and general holiday pay claims should be calculated based on these attendance records, considering the specifics of the case. The decision made with an incomplete examination on this issue is incorrect and requires a reversal.”
The Supreme Court stated that the attendance records must be consistent with the documents showing the employee’s leave. The court should ask the parties about these documents, investigate whether there is any contradiction between the attendance records and other documents in the file, and evaluate the specifics of the case accordingly.
In a similar vein, the Supreme Court's 22nd Civil Chamber, 2013/13442 E., 2014/23494 K., dated 10.09.2014:
“According to the file, the defendant submitted entry and exit records for the period between 04.01.2007 and 31.12.2007, 02.01.2008 and 31.12.2008, 02.01.2009 and 31.03.2009, along with signed payrolls for the working period. It is understood that overtime was accrued in some of the signed payrolls. In the expert report relied upon by the court, it was stated that the months with overtime accruals were excluded from the calculation because the signed payrolls without any reservations could not be proven otherwise with written evidence equivalent to the payroll. However, if the payrolls are signed and without reservations, the employee must prove with valid written evidence that they worked more than what is written on the payroll. The entry and exit records submitted by the defendant are equivalent documents that prove otherwise to the signed payrolls. Therefore, the plaintiff’s overtime pay claim should be calculated based on the entry and exit records, considering the statute of limitations, rather than the written decision.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the existence of written evidence negates the need for witness testimony. However, if the signed payrolls and attendance records conflict, the overtime pay claim can be calculated based on the attendance records, which provide a stronger basis for the plaintiff's claim.
Consistency of Attendance Records with Workplace Time Sheets
According to Article 67, paragraph 1 of the Labor Law, the employer is required to notify employees of the start and end times of the daily work and break times. Therefore, attendance records must also be consistent with the time sheets posted in the workplace, showing the working hours and break times.
In the Supreme Court's 22nd Civil Chamber decision, 2013/3576 E., 2014/1718 K., dated 07.02.2014:
“In the present case, the expert report relied upon by the court calculated the plaintiff’s overtime pay based on a 45-minute break, relying on the statement of a single witness. The factory personnel working hours sheet in the file indicates that the working hours on weekdays are from 08:00 to 18:30, with a 1-hour break and two 15-minute tea breaks. Since there is no work exceeding 45 hours per week according to the signed attendance records and the working hours sheet, the acceptance of the overtime pay claim instead of rejection is incorrect and requires a reversal.”
The Supreme Court stated that if the attendance records do not contain contradictions and are consistent with the workplace records, the attendance records can be relied upon as evidence.
Another important point is that if the attendance records are unsigned, it must be clearly established how the records were kept and the start and end times of the workday. In the Supreme Court's 9th Civil Chamber decision, 2007/27606 E., 2008/26201 K., dated 10.10.2008:
“When examining the digital records in the file, it is seen that they are prepared monthly, showing the start and end times of the workday, and do not bear the signature of the employee or the approval of the authorities. It has not been established how and in what manner these records were kept. If the records undoubtedly reflect the truth, the overtime pay should be determined based on these records; otherwise, it should be determined based on the available evidence and witness statements in the file. The decision made with an incomplete examination is incorrect.”
It is essential that the attendance records submitted to the file are thoroughly examined, and how these records were kept should be clearly established. At a minimum, the records should be approved by the authorities and show the start and end times of the workday.
In our opinion, attendance records are kept at the discretion of the employer and can therefore be manipulated. In practice, attendance records kept by the employer can be filled arbitrarily, showing the employee as arriving and leaving work on time, even if the employee arrives earlier or leaves later, or pressure can be exerted on employees to sign the attendance records. Therefore, accepting these records without questioning is not correct; a cautious approach should be taken. It is necessary to investigate whether the records reflect the truth and make a decision considering the specific circumstances of the case.
If it cannot be proven that the records have been manipulated despite all the investigations and examinations during the trial, it should be accepted that these records are reliable. The Supreme Court's 22nd Civil Chamber decision, 2013/2616 E., 2014/935 K., dated 27.01.2014:
“The court stated that this type of record system could be manually interfered with by the employer and that these documents could not be relied upon. However, during the trial, it was not claimed or proven that the employer interfered with the records, that there was work outside the recorded times, or that work was performed without clocking in. Therefore, the entry and exit records should be used to calculate overtime, weekend, and public holiday pay.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that if it cannot be proven that the employer interfered with the records, even if they are kept at the employer’s discretion, the decision should be based on the attendance records.
Attendance records kept by the employee himself cannot be considered valid for the employee. In the Supreme Court's 9th Civil Chamber decision, 2011/42917 E., 2013/15210 K., dated 21.05.2013:
“In the present case, the expert report relied upon by the court calculated the plaintiff’s overtime pay based on the attendance records submitted by the plaintiff for the period between 28.7.2008 and 28.3.2010, assuming that the plaintiff worked 10 hours of overtime per week. The plaintiff was the store manager and prepared these attendance records himself. These documents do not bear the signature of any other authority of the defendant employer. While these records are binding for other employees, they are not binding for the plaintiff, who was a manager. The wage slips for the relevant period submitted by the defendant employer show that overtime was accrued in all of them, and all were signed without reservations. The court should have relied on these wage slips, signed without reservations, rather than the attendance records prepared by the plaintiff himself, and rejected the plaintiff’s overtime claim.”
The Supreme Court stated that each case should be evaluated individually regarding attendance records. In the case at hand, the attendance records prepared by the store manager were not considered valid for the manager but could be valid for other employees.
Lastly, it should be noted that attendance records should only be considered for the periods they cover. For example, if attendance records are kept for certain periods of the year but not for others, calculations cannot be made for the entire year. Therefore, the periods covered by the attendance records should be carefully determined, and calculations should be made accordingly.
Attendance records are crucial evidence and frequently encountered in practice. Many points and details to be considered regarding attendance records have been outlined above. Some adjustments can change the outcome of a case. Therefore, we recommend that both employees and employers seek professional legal services in labor disputes.
Commentaires