Sicil, 2016/II Sayi 36: Sayfa 91-106
Doç. Dr. Mahmut Kabakci
Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Isletme Fakültesi Is ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku
Ar. Gör. Arzu Hacioglu
Istanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Isletme Fakültesi Is ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku
Asil isveren alt isveren iliskisi, uygulamada kötüye kullanim nedeniyle 4857 sayili Kanunda önemli sinirlandirmalara tabi tutulmustur. Bu sinirlandirmalara uyulmadan isçi temini amaciyla kurulan asil isveren alt isveren iliskisinde alt isveren isçisi yasa tarafindan bastan itibaren asil isverenin isçisi olarak kabul edilmistir. Açilan davalarda ilk baslarda muvazaali alt isverenler hakkinda husumet yoklugundan davanin reddine karar verilmistir. Ancak Yargitay’in son dönemdeki isabetli içtihadinda asil isveren ile birlikte, haksiz fiil hükümlerine göre muvazaali alt isveren de BK m. 61 uyarinca müteselsilen sorumlu kabul edilmektedir. Bu içtihadin asil isveren ile alt isveren arasindaki Borçlar Hukuku iliskisinde önemli sonuçlari söz konusudur. Asil isverenlerin Is Kanunu m. 2 uyarinca ödemek zorunda kaldiklari isçilik alacaklarini rücu için açtiklari davalarda, alt isveren Is Hukuku kapsaminda bir sorumlulugu olmadigindan rücu hakki olmadigini savunmaktadir. Tersine kendisi ödemek zorunda kaldigi tutarlari da, asil isverenden ayni gerekçe ile talep edebilmektedir. Acaba bu savunmada oldugu gibi, asil isveren alt isveren arasindaki rücu iliskisinde Is Hukuku ilkeleri uygulanabilir mi? Yargitay’in isçinin hukuki durumunu ilgilendiren muvazaanin asil isveren alt isveren arasindaki rücu bakimindan bir etkisinin bulunmadigi, somut sözlesmede açik hüküm bulunmadigi takdirde BK m. 167’deki esit paylasim karinesinin uygulanacagi içtihadi isabetli midir? Bu çalismada belirtilen bu sorularin yaniti aranmistir. Burada en basta, asil isveren ile alt isverenin muvazaanin, baska deyisle isçiye karsi haksiz fiilin birlikte tarafi olduklarindan rücu konusunun -asil isveren alt isveren iliskisi hukuka uygun olsun ya da olmasin- ayni sartlarda degerlendirilmesi gerektigi ve sözlesmelerde açik bir kararlastirmaya yer verilmedigi takdirde, iliskinin isçi temini olmayip isin devri konulu olmasi nedeniyle, sorumlulugun bütünüyle alt isverende oldugu, çikis noktasi olarak tespit edilmelidir.
Asıl işveren- alt işveren ilişkisi, birlikte sorumluluk, rücu.
Principal employer-subcontractor relationship is subjected to significant restrictions under Law numbered 4857 due to abuse in practice. In a principal employer-subcontractor relationship which is not complied with those restrictions with the intent of employee recruitment, subcontractor’s employee is accepted as the employee of the principal employer from the beginning by law. In the filed lawsuits, initially, they were dismissed on the ground of lack of hostility regarding simulated subcontractors. However according to the recent judgments of the Court of Cassation, simulated subcontractor is held jointly liable with principal employer under tort rules pursuant to article 61 of Code of Obligations. This judgment has important outcomes in the obligational relationship between the principal employer and the subcontractor. In the case of principal employers’ recourse for the labour claims which the principal employer was obliged to pay pursuant to article 2 of Labour Act, subcontractor defends that principal employer has no right to recourse on the ground that he has no liability under Labour Law. On the contrary, subcontractor, demands the payments had to be made by himself from the principal employer, based on the same ground. Are the principals of labour law applicable to recourse between the principal employer and the subcontractor, as in this defence? Is the judgment of the Court of Cassation that the simulation which concerns legal status of the employee, has no effect regarding the recourse between the principal employer and the subcontractor; unless otherwise is provided, share and share alike principle under the article 167 of Code of Obligations will be applicable? Answers of the aforementioned questions have been sought in this study. First and foremost, it must be set as starting point that recourse between principal employer and subcontractor must be evaluated under the same conditions whether principal employer-subcontractor relationship is legal or not, since both principal employer and subcontractor are party to simulation, in another saying, they are joint tortfeasors regarding the employee; and unless otherwise agreed, liability relies entirely on subcontractor for the reason that subject matter of the relation is the transfer of the business not the employee recruitment.
Principal employer-subcontractor relationship, joint liability, recourse.