bu hukuk ingilizcesinin neresi kötü

6 ay evvel bi büroyla görüşme sonrası attılar ben de aşağıdaki gibi cvpladım millet bi şeyi beğenmez olmuş

Question 1

1-)The term “mobbing” is not explicitly included in Turkish Labor Law. That said, under some circumstances workers have right to claim that mobbing occurred since employers have to comply with the principle of equal treatment which is regulated in the Article 5. In the spesific case, the manager had been engaging in mobbing against the 55-year old woman by constantly censuring her without valid reason. Therefore, i would file mobbing case and call co-workers as witnesses and deploy camera recordings, then the burden of proof would lies with the employer, according to Supreme Court.

2-) Since the conflict stems from labour law, the case should be opened in Labour Court. According to Labor Courts Law, Article 6 jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the defendant, or the place where the business is conducted. Therefore, the case should be opened in the courts whether in Istanbul, where is the headquarter of the company or Ankara that is the branch the woman had worked in.

3-) Since it is the wrongful termination of the contract of employment, the woman would most likely win the case, getting severance package and notice compensation. Moreover, owing to blatant age discrimination, the woman would get compensation up to 4 months salary.

4-) i) The company may assert that according to Supreme Court, for mobbing to be considered, employer’s action must persist for six months, hence the woman hadn’t been exposed to mobbing since it lasted only for three months. On top of that, if the woman’s stealing company products to be proven by the company, the termination would be based on valid reasons. ii) if the verdict would be against the company, then the company had right to recourse the compensations to manager who is responsible for the case opened.

Question 2

1-) Although Orhan and Esin are able to change scope of business and headquarter since requirement stated in Turkish Commercial Law, Article 621 that approval of two-thirds of shareholders and majority of capital needed, they wouldn’t alter the company to joint stock market company since Article 189 requires consent of three-fourths of the shareholders.

2-) According to Article 621, in the presence of valid reasons, a shareholder might be expelled with approval of two-thirds of shareholders and majority of capital. Orhan and Esin aim to increase profits whilst Bartu contradicts that. Therefore Orhan and Esin may apply to Commercial Court of First Instance.

3-) According to Article 638, in the presence of valid reasons, a shareholder might apply to Court in order to withdraw from company. The relocation of headquarter to another place and amendment of scope of business can be defined as valid reasons for Bartu. According to Article 641 Bartu has right to demand the exit payment that corresponds to the real value of his shares in the registered capital.

4-) According to Article 576, article of associations must include the information of business scope and headquarter. Therefore after the decision of these amendments had been made in General Assembly, they must be registered and announced in the trade registry.

yalwarırım bana yardım edin

well, en azından denedim, hamzoş olsa hukukun ingilizcesi mi olur omg paaiinnnnn der kapatırdı dosyayı

bu ingilizceyi ben seçmedim

eller kadir kıymet bilmiyor

Hamzoş? @hamza5806