Asıl İşveren-Alt İşveren İlişkisinde Zorunlu Arabuluculuk

Compulsory Mediation in Business Relation Between the Main Employer and the Sub-Employer

Ertuğrul YUVALI

Her türlü uyuşmazlığın yargı önüne götürülmesi, sürecin uzaması ve mahkemelerinin iş yükünün ağırlaşmasının yanında gerek devlete gerek bireylere ekonomik anlamda ağır maliyetler yüklemekte ve bireyler arasında düşmanlığa yol açabilmektedir. Bu itibarla uyuşmazlıkların nitelik bakımından uygun olanlarının mahkeme önünde çözümü yerine alternatif çözüm yolları ile giderilmeye çalışılması pek çok sorunun da önüne geçebilecektir. Arabuluculuk kurumu bahsi geçen alternatif çözüm yolları arasında belki de en çok tercih edilen yöntem olarak dikkat çekmektedir. Arabuluculuk; iradilik, tarafsızlık, gizlilik ve eşitlik ilkeleri çerçevesinde yürütülen bir süreçtir. Bununla birlikte kanun koyucu 7036 sayılı İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu ile iş yargısında arabuluculuğa başvuruyu dava şartı olarak öngörerek mahkemelerin iş yükünü hafifletmeyi, uyuşmazlıkların daha kolay, hızlı, ucuz ve etkili bir biçimde çözülmesini hedeflemiştir. Söz konusu “dava şartı arabuluculuk”; arabuluculuğun iradilik ve taraf eşitliği esaslarına aykırı olduğu ve Anayasa’da öngörülen hak arama özgürlüğüne aykırılık oluşturabileceği noktalarında kritik edilmiştir. Bununla birlikte belirtelim ki; bu çalışma özü itibariyle asıl işveren-alt işveren ilişkisinin söz konusu olduğu uyuşmazlıklar bakımından arabuluculuk sürecinin nasıl işleyeceği hususunu irdelemektedir. Dolayısıyla arabuluculuk kavramı, arabuluculuğun temel ilkeleri vb. konular daha yüzeysel olarak ele alınmış ve asıl-işveren alt işveren ilişkisinin söz konusu olduğu uyuşmazlıklar bakımından arabuluculuk süreci incelenmiştir.

Arabuluculuk, Dava Şartı Arabuluculuk, Asıl İşveren, Alt İşveren, Muvazaalı İş İlişkisi.

Bringing all kinds of disputes to the judiciary, in addition to the prolongation of the process and the heavy workload of the courts, imposes heavy costs on both the state and individuals in economic terms and may lead to hostility among individuals. For these reasons, trying to resolve the disputes with alternative solutions instead of solving the disputes in front of the court will prevent many problems. The mediation institution draws attention as perhaps the most preferred method among the aforementioned alternative solutions. Mediation is a process that carried out within the framework of the principles of voluntariness, impartiality, confidentiality and equality. In addition, the legislator, with the Labour Courts Law No. 7036, aimed to alleviate the workload of the courts and to resolve disputes more easily, quickly, cheaply and effectively by envisaging the application to mediation as a condition of litigation. The aforementioned “mediation as a condition of trial” has been criticized on the points that mediation is contrary to the principles of voluntariness and equality of parties and may constitute a violation of the freedom of seeking rights envisaged in the Constitution. However, this study examines how the mediation process will work in terms of disputes where the main employer and the sub-employer relationship is in question. Therefore, the concept of mediation, the basic principles of mediation, etc. these issues were handled more superficially and the mediation process was examined in terms of disputes involving the main employer and the sub-employer relationship.

Mediation, Mediation as a Condition of Trial, Main Employer, Sub-Employer, Collusive Business Relations.

Extended Abstract

Bringing all kinds of disputes to the jurisdiction imposes heavy costs on both the state and individuals in economic terms and may lead to hostility among individuals in addition to the prolongation of the process and the heavy workload of the courts. In this respect, trying to resolve the disputes with alternative solutions instead of solving the disputes in the court will prevent many problems. Mediation institution draws attention as the most preferred method among the aforementioned alternative solutions.
The most important innovation brought by Law No.7036, which abolished the Law No: 5521 on Labor Courts, is that mediation in labor disputes is a cause of action, and obligation of applying to a mediator before filing a lawsuit. A quite long and detailed regulation related to mediation of Article 3 of the aforementioned Law was envisaged. In its first paragraph, the provision of “In lawsuits filed with the demand of employee or employer receivables and compensation and reemployment based on the law, individual or collective labor agreements, the application to a mediator is a cause of action,” has been included. Based on this provision, mediation, which is a cause of action in labor law, can basically be grouped into two categories. The first one of these is employee or employer receivables, and the second is reemployment lawsuits.
The basic principles of mediation are being volitional and equality (Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes Art.3), confidentiality (Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes Art.4), and non-use of statements and documents (Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes Art.5). In the mediation method, which is a unique model, the fact that mediator has no authority to make a decision has made mediation a two-sided structure. However, the fact that mediators do not have authority to make decisions does not mean that they are powerless. In fact, the mediator is the person who initiates the process and is responsible for the good management of the process. In this respect, a secure negotiation environment should be provided for the parties. In terms of the aforementioned negotiation environment, the mediator must be an impartial third person independent of the parties and the dispute. In fact, the most basic duty of the mediator is to try to ensure that the parties continue this negotiation without any interruption or disruption.
In terms of the scope and limitations of this study, we tried to examine not all of the new regulations foreseen regarding mediation in labor disputes, but only the regulations and innovations in terms of labor receivables and reemployment lawsuits in labor disputes where the primary employer-sub-employer relationship is in question. The provision of the third paragraph of Article 15 of the Law No. 7036, which is a special regulation for the mediation process, and the issue of “joinder of parties” between the primary employer and the sub-employer in the context of this provision have been examined especially while examining the issue, in terms of reemployment in cases where the primary employer-sub-employer relationship questions the cause of action for the mediation process.
In the case of the primary employer-sub-employer institution, where there is a triple business relationship, the employee may apply to mediation jointly or separately for the sub-employer or the primary employer, who are jointly responsible for the reinstatement of their rights. It is not necessary for the sub-employer and the principal employer to participate in mediation together and reach an agreement in order to make an agreement. However, if the employee wants to file a lawsuit for his receivables, it will be in the employee’s interest to direct the enmity against the two employers together, since both employers have joint liability in the primary employer-sub-employer relationship. Otherwise, to whom the enmity is directed from the main employer or sub-employer, it will only make a judgment about him. Similarly, if the employee applies to the mediator for only one of the primary employer and sub-employer who are jointly liable, the agreement made by these people in the mediator will only bind them.
In addition to the fact that this is the case in terms of laborers’ receivables, a special regulation has been envisaged for the cause of action mediation process in cases where the primary employer-sub-employer relationship is in question in terms of reemployment. In fact, in the provision of the 15th paragraph of the 3rd Article of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 when a mediator is consulted with a request for reemployment in case of the presence of the principal employer-sub-employer relationship, it is required that the employers participate in the mediation negotiations together and their wills are compatible with each other in order for the agreement to be made.
In conclusion, in the presence of the sub-employer-principal employer relationship, the disputes that may occur between the aforementioned employee and the employers are not just about reemployment. It should be stated that the obligation stipulated by the provision of Article 3/15 of the Labor Courts Law is valid only for reemployment disputes and shall not be applied for other laborers” receivables and compensations. As stated above, dispute resolution may be necessary for the employment dispute between the employee and their employer in terms of other workers’ receivables and compensations. In terms of the disputes in question, it is not obligatory to put forward all the demands put forth by the employer together against the primary employer and the sub-employer due to the voluntary joinder of parties. In addition, prior to the lawsuit to be filed by the laborer, consulting to mediation is a cause of action for the enmity to be directed against only one or both of them.

GİRİŞ

5521 sayılı İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu’nu yürürlükten kaldıran 7036 sayılı Kanun’un getirdiği en önemli yenilik, iş uyuşmazlıklarında arabuluculuğun bir dava şartı olması, bu çerçevede dava açmadan önce arabulucuya başvuru zorunluluğudur. Söz konusu Kanunun 3. maddesinde arabuluculukla ilgili oldukça uzun ve ayrıntılı bir düzenleme öngörülmüş olup ilk fıkrasında “Kanuna, bireysel veya toplu iş sözleşmesine dayanan işçi veya işveren alacağı ve tazminatı ile işe iade talebiyle açılan davalarda, arabulucuya başvurulmuş olması dava şartıdır.” hükmüne yer verilmiştir. Bu hükümden hareketle, iş hukukunda dava şartı arabuluculuk esasen iki kategoride toplanabilir. Bunlardan ilki, işçi veya işveren alacakları, ikincisi ise işe iade davalarıdır. 7036 sayılı Kanunla öngörülen bu yeni düzenlemeyle uyumlu olarak başta İş Kanunu olmak üzere diğer ilgili kanunlarda da değişiklikler yapılmıştır. Nitekim 4857 sayılı İş Kanunu’nda da işe iade davalarıyla ilgili olarak öngörülmüş olan 20. ve 21. maddeleri değiştirilmiş, arabuluculuk hususunda hükümler eklenmiştir.

Bu çalışma kapsamı ve sınırları itibariyle iş uyuşmazlıklarında arabuluculukla ilgili öngörülen yeni düzenlemelerin tümünü değil, sadece asıl işveren alt işveren ilişkisinin de söz konusu olduğu iş uyuşmazlıklarında işçilik alacakları ve işe iade davaları bakımından yapılan düzenleme ve getirilen yenilikleri incelemeye çalışacağız. Konuyu incelerken bilhassa işe iade bakımından asıl işveren-alt işveren ilişkisinin söz konusu olduğu durumlarda dava şartı arabuluculuk süreci için özel bir düzenleme olan 7036 sayılı Kanun’un 15. maddesinin üçüncü fıkrası hükmünü ve bu hüküm bağlamında asıl işveren alt işveren arasındaki “dava arkadaşlığı” hususunu irdelemeye çalışacağız.