Whether Money Paid to Domestic and International Truck Drivers for Each Trip Is a Travel Allowance or Wages/Bonus

Republic of Türkiye

Court of Cassation

Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law

Docket No. 2018/1

Decision No. 2019/5

Date: October 4, 2019

• WHETHER MONEY PAID TO DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TRUCK DRIVERS FOR EACH TRIP IS A TRAVEL ALLOWANCE OR WAGES/BONUS (Depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence, the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.)

• WHETHER MONEY PAID TO DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL TRUCK DRIVERS FOR EACH TRIP IS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING SEVERANCE PAY AND EARNINGS SUBJECT TO SOCIAL SECURITY PREMIUMS (Under the principle of ex officio investigation, depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence, the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance. It must therefore be accepted that it would be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.)

• PRINCIPLE OF EX OFFICIO INVESTIGATION (Whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus. Since the principle of ex officio investigation applies in cases arising from social security legislation, in each case file the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.)

Law No. 4857, Article 32

Law No. 1475, Article 14

SUMMARY: At the conclusion of the deliberations in the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law, it was held that there is no need to unify case law, even though unification had been requested on “whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus, and whether it is to be taken into account in calculating severance pay and earnings subject to social security premiums”. The reasons are as follows. The principle of party presentation applies in cases concerning employee receivables, while the principle of ex officio investigation applies in cases arising from social security legislation. Accordingly, in each case file the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.

I. Introduction

A. Application for unification of case law

By a petition dated May 9, 2017 submitted by Att. B.Ö., it was requested that a conflict of case law between the decisions of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers and the 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd Civil Chambers be resolved through unification of case law. The conflict concerned whether the travel allowance or per-trip pay given to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip forms part of their basic wage, whether it can be treated as an additional payment, and whether it must be taken into account in calculating severance pay.

B. Decision of the Court of Cassation First Presidency Board and subject of the unification

On March 14, 2018, the Court of Cassation First Presidency Board decided as follows: “Since it has been concluded that there is a conflict of opinion between the decisions of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Court of Cassation 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd Civil Chambers as to whether the travel allowance or per-trip pay given to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip forms part of the basic wage, whether it can be treated as an additional payment, and whether it must be taken into account in calculating severance pay, the conflict must be resolved by the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law.”

However, during the deliberations in the Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law, it was found that the core of the dispute lay in whether the money paid to truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus and, depending on the answer, whether it should be taken into account in calculating severance pay and earnings subject to social security premiums. It was therefore concluded that the subject of unification as originally defined was not sufficient to resolve the actual conflict. The Assembly unanimously decided to redefine the subject of unification as “whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus, and whether it is to be taken into account in calculating severance pay and earnings subject to social security premiums”.

C. Decisions subject to the request for resolution of the conflict of opinion

The decisions concerned are the following. The decision of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers, Docket No. 1998/9-622, Decision No. 1998/681 (November 7, 1998). The decisions of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2007/11859, Decision No. 2008/4681 (March 11, 2008) and Docket No. 2011/19728, Decision No. 2013/19424 (June 24, 2013). The decisions of the Court of Cassation 10th Civil Chamber, Docket No. 1996/2012, Decision No. 1996/4307 (June 11, 1996), Docket No. 2000/9445, Decision No. 2001/252 (January 22, 2001), Docket No. 2002/11557, Decision No. 2003/3907 (April 17, 2003), Docket No. 2003/6234, Decision No. 2003/9575 (October 20, 2003), Docket No. 2003/8175, Decision No. 2004/2480 (March 15, 2004), Docket No. 2005/10373, Decision No. 2005/9427 (October 7, 2005), Docket No. 2005/5101, Decision No. 2006/4938 (May 1, 2006), Docket No. 2005/8334, Decision No. 2006/8855 (September 18, 2006), Docket No. 2005/13896, Decision No. 2007/564 (January 22, 2007), Docket No. 2007/201, Decision No. 2008/1874 (February 19, 2008), Docket No. 2009/3101, Decision No. 2009/4768 (April 17, 2009), Docket No. 2008/3280, Decision No. 2009/7326 (June 15, 2009), Docket No. 2008/8919, Decision No. 2010/96 (January 11, 2010), Docket No. 2009/10623, Decision No. 2011/3001 (March 21, 2011), Docket No. 2009/13293, Decision No. 2011/5615 (May 9, 2011), Docket No. 2012/7657, Decision No. 2012/9951 (June 7, 2012), Docket No. 2011/4592, Decision No. 2013/6596 (April 2, 2013), Docket No. 2012/13597, Decision No. 2014/4823 (March 13, 2014), Docket No. 2013/16697, Decision No. 2014/5330 (March 19, 2014), Docket No. 2013/748, Decision No. 2014/8273 (May 2, 2014), Docket No. 2014/8720, Decision No. 2014/17039 (November 6, 2014), Docket No. 2014/3717, Decision No. 2015/1769 (February 12, 2015) and Docket No. 2015/4023, Decision No. 2015/11051 (October 26, 2015). The decisions of the Court of Cassation 21st Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2008/18706, Decision No. 2009/15776 (December 7, 2009), Docket No. 2015/3348, Decision No. 2015/6346 (March 26, 2015) and Docket No. 2014/19363, Decision No. 2015/16748 (September 17, 2015). The decisions of the Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2013/18453, Decision No. 2014/8165 (April 15, 2014), Docket No. 2013/7568, Decision No. 2014/13812 (May 21, 2014) and Docket No. 2015/3348, Decision No. 2015/6346 (March 26, 2015).

D. Summaries of the opinions of the Court of Cassation chambers concerned by the request

1. Opinion of the 9th Civil Chamber

The Chamber stated that the working system and the proof of overtime vary with each dispute and the state of the evidence, and may therefore differ from case to case. It noted that pay given to an employee sent on international trips, in addition to a fixed wage, under the name of a per-trip bonus or travel allowance is accepted as part of the basic wage, that the practice of the Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber is the same, and that there is therefore no need for unification of case law.

2. Opinion of the 10th Civil Chamber

The Chamber stated that, in determining the monthly earnings of truck drivers, whether payments made by the employer under the names of travel expenses, trip bonus or travel allowance are in fact a travel allowance or wages, or how much of them is travel allowance and how much is wages, must be assessed in each case file according to the specific facts. Since such payments cannot be classified as travel allowance or wages from the outset, there is no need for unification of case law.

3. Opinion of the 11th Civil Chamber

The Chamber reported that it has no case law on the matter subject to the request for unification, and that the assessment should be made in line with the opinions of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Court of Cassation 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd Civil Chambers.

4. Opinion of the 21st Civil Chamber

The Chamber stated that the working system of truck drivers and the proof of their overtime may vary with the evidence submitted and the dispute in each file, so the assessment may differ depending on the evidence and the specific facts, and there is therefore no need for unification of case law. It added that the Chamber accepts that a travel allowance is not an essential element of wages but a payment intended to cover the employee's needs (hotel, meals and so on) while on duty.

5. Opinion of the 22nd Civil Chamber

The Chamber stated that its practice is to treat pay given to an employee sent on international trips, in addition to a fixed wage, under the name of a per-trip bonus or travel allowance as part of the basic wage, that the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber follows the same practice, and that it therefore considers there is no need for unification of case law.

6. Opinion of the Assembly of Civil Chambers

After referring to the decisions of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Court of Cassation 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd Civil Chambers, the opinion stated that unification of case law is necessary because of the conflict of case law on whether, in determining the basic wage of truck drivers, pay given under the name of a trip bonus or travel allowance forms part of the basic wage, whether it can be treated as an additional payment, and whether it must be taken into account in calculating severance pay.

II. Preliminary issue

The Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law convened on October 4, 2019 to consider the subject determined by the First Presidency of the Court of Cassation. After the report prepared by rapporteur member Battal Yılmaz was read, and before turning to the merits, the Assembly discussed as a preliminary issue whether there were differences in case law between the decisions of the Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers and the Court of Cassation 9th, 10th, 21st and 22nd Civil Chambers, and whether there was any need for unification of case law.

III. Reasoning

Before assessing the preliminary issue, it is useful to briefly examine the concepts of wages, bonus, earnings subject to social security premiums and travel allowance that relate to the subject of unification, then to explain evidence and proof in employment and social security law, and finally to address the characteristics of unification of case law decisions.

1. The concept of wages

Under Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (No. 2709), titled “Ensuring fairness in wages”, wages are the consideration for labor.

Under the first paragraph of Article 32 of the Labor Law (No. 4857) (Law No. 4857, the Labor Law or the Law), titled “Wages and payment of wages”, “In general terms, wages are the amount provided to a person by the employer or by third parties in return for work and paid in money.”

Likewise, under Article 401 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (No. 6098) (TCO), the employer is obliged to pay the employee the wage set in the employment contract or the collective bargaining agreement. Where the contract contains no such provision, the employer must pay the customary wage, which may not be lower than the minimum wage.

Wages fall into two categories: basic (bare, core) wages and wages in the broad sense (all-inclusive wages).

Basic wages are the wages defined in the first paragraph of Article 32 of the Labor Law (No. 4857). They are the wages agreed when the employment contract is concluded between the employee and the employer, or the wages announced unconditionally by the employer when hiring the employee. Basic wages are also referred to as bare or core wages.

The basic (bare) wage paid to the employee, which the Labor Law describes as the basic wage, is an amount paid in money (in cash). In other words, the basic wage cannot be agreed or paid in kind (in goods). Fringe benefits provided to the employee, such as extra salary payments, bonuses, social benefits and other wage supplements, are not included in the basic wage (Süzek, S.: İş Hukuku, 18th Edition, Istanbul 2019, p. 351).

Law No. 4857 provides that in certain cases the employee is to be paid on the basis of the basic wage only. Under Article 50 and the second paragraph of Article 57 of that Law, pay for weekly rest days, national holidays, public holidays and annual leave is calculated on the basis of the basic wage (Süzek, p. 351).

Wages in the broad sense (all-inclusive wages), on the other hand, are wages to which payments such as extra salary payments, bonuses, commissions and profit shares, as well as social benefits in money or money's worth such as meals, transportation, clothing, heating fuel and housing, are added on top of the basic wage.

Under the Labor Law (No. 4857), wages in the broad sense are taken into account for certain payments. For example, under the seventh paragraph of Article 17 of the Law, in calculating notice pay and bad faith compensation, contractual and statutory benefits in money or money's worth provided to the employee are taken into account in addition to the wages defined in the first paragraph of Article 32. The same applies to the calculation of severance pay. Under the eleventh paragraph of Article 14 of the repealed Labor Law (No. 1475), which still applies by virtue of Article 120 of the Labor Law (No. 4857), contractual and statutory benefits in money or money's worth provided to the employee in addition to the basic wage are also taken into account in calculating the compensation. In addition, in compensation claims arising from occupational accidents and occupational diseases, calculations are likewise based on all-inclusive wages.

A bonus, which is one of the supplements to wages, is additional pay given to reward the employee for work successfully performed in terms of quality and quantity. Bonuses are intended to encourage the employee to work better, more successfully and more productively.

Bonuses may be provided for in a collective bargaining agreement or an employment contract, or they may be granted unilaterally by the employer without any contractual basis (Süzek, p. 354). In the latter case, however, the bonus practice must have become a term of employment. In other words, a unilateral bonus practice may be treated as part of wages in the broad sense (all-inclusive wages) if the bonus is paid continuously and regularly. It is also possible for an employee to work solely for bonuses, in which case the employee's pay must not fall below the minimum wage.

2. The concept of travel allowance

Article 1 of the Travel Allowance Law (No. 6245) (the Law) provides that travel allowances paid by the following bodies are to be determined under that Law: departments included in the general budget, annexed and special budget administrations (excluding village budgets) and the institutions with fixed and revolving capital attached to them, banks and organizations established by special laws (excluding Denizcilik Bankası Türk Anonim Ortaklığı, Türkiye Vakıflar Bankası Türk Anonim Ortaklığı and Türk Havayolları Anonim Ortaklığı), and organizations and institutions in which the departments, administrations, banks, organizations and institutions of these bodies hold more than half of the capital.

Article 3 of the Law states that a travel allowance covers one, several or all of the travel expenses, daily allowance, family expenses and relocation expenses payable under the Law. It then defines the terms civil servant and service employee. According to the Law, the term service employee covers personnel in the auxiliary services class under the personnel laws, persons working in institutions solely against an allowance, agricultural and forestry workers employed in institutions, and persons considered employees under the labor laws.

Article 5 of the Law further provides that a travel allowance includes travel expenses, daily allowance, family expenses and relocation expenses, and that the person concerned may become entitled to one, several or all of these under the Law.

3. The concept of earnings subject to social security premiums

Article 80 of the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law (No. 5510) sets out the earnings of an insured person working under an employment contract that are subject to premium deductions, the earnings that are partly exempt from premium deductions, and the earnings that are not subject to premium deductions at all. Accordingly, the earnings used to calculate the premiums payable by insured persons and employers for a month are the gross total of the following: the wages earned by the insured person in that month, payments made in that month of bonuses, extra salary payments and all similar entitlements, amounts paid by employers for insured persons into private health insurance and the private pension system, and payments made to insured persons in that month pursuant to decisions of administrative or judicial authorities in the nature of earnings such as wages, holiday pay, bonuses, extra salary payments and overtime pay.

By contrast, the following are not included in earnings subject to premiums: in-kind benefits provided to the insured employee, death, birth and marriage allowances, duty travel allowances, field duty compensation, severance pay, end-of-service compensation or lump-sum payments in the nature of severance pay, survey fees, notice pay and cash handling allowances, meal, child and family allowances in amounts determined annually by the Social Security Institution, and private health insurance premiums and private pension contributions paid by employers for insured persons, provided that their monthly total does not exceed 30% of the minimum wage.

4. Collection of evidence and proof of wages in employment litigation

It should be noted at this point that, as a rule, the principle of party presentation applies in proceedings concerning employee receivables. Under Article 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (No. 6100) (Law No. 6100 or the CCP), apart from the exceptions provided by law, the judge may not take into account on his or her own motion any matter or fact that neither party has raised, and may not even act in a way that might remind the parties of them. Moreover, except in cases specified by law, the judge may not collect evidence on his or her own motion.

The burden of proving the amount of wages lies with the employee. Wages may be proven by written evidence such as individual or collective employment contracts, pay slips, payrolls and bank records. Where the wages shown in the records do not match the actual wages, however, the amount of the basic wage or of wages in the broad sense can be determined by researching comparable wages through professional organizations and the relevant trade unions, collecting the witness testimony and other evidence offered by the parties, and assessing all of it together.

In cases arising from social security legislation, by contrast, the principle of ex officio investigation by the court applies as a rule.

Given that social security law has features of both public law and private law, the principle of ex officio investigation clearly prevails, especially in actions for determination of earnings subject to premiums. In these cases, which concern public order, the judge must show particular diligence, collect the evidence on his or her own motion and decide on that basis. In cases where the principle of ex officio investigation applies, the burden of proof cannot be placed on one party. Accordingly, where the court finds the evidence put forward and submitted by the parties insufficient to determine earnings subject to premiums, it must investigate further evidence on its own motion and determine the actual wage level.

5. Characteristics of unification of case law decisions

Court of Cassation unification of case law decisions (UCLD) derive from Articles 16 and 45 of the Court of Cassation Law. The institution of unification of case law, which is unique to Turkish law, was first adopted through an amendment to the Court of Cassation Law (Mahkemei Temyiz Kanunu, No. 834) in order to resolve conflicts that might arise between the decisions of the appellate chambers from the application of new laws, and it has been retained in all subsequent amendments (Bilge, N.: Yargıtay Kurullarında Gelişme ve Reform, AÜHFD, p. 311, citing the Grand National Assembly Minutes of 1926, No. 150).

UCLDs are final and no judicial remedy lies against them (Court of Cassation Law, Article 16, final paragraph). In similar legal matters, they are binding on the General Assemblies and chambers of the Court of Cassation and on the courts of justice (Court of Cassation Law, Article 45/5).

Because they stand above other judicial decisions and bind all judicial bodies, unification of case law decisions are by nature closer to a legislative function and resemble rule-making acts more than judicial decisions (Gözler, K.: Hukuka Giriş, p. 341).

A UCLD does not relate to a specific case or dispute. Instead, it should lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind, because the fundamental aim of a UCLD is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law. UCLDs are also limited to their subject matter, explanatory through their reasoning and binding in their results (Court of Cassation Assembly of Civil Chambers, February 20, 1963, No. 4/71-21).

It is clear that a unification of case law decision takes effect from the moment it is adopted and does not apply retroactively. In other words, it does not affect decisions that have already become final.

Furthermore, a precondition for adopting a unification of case law decision is that the Court of Cassation chambers and the Assembly of Civil or Criminal Chambers have established their views and positions on a particular matter in firm and consistent case law, and that this approach has become settled in practice. Put differently, there must be a settled practice in the decisions of the Court of Cassation chambers and the Assembly of Civil or Criminal Chambers that are the subject of unification. Accordingly, the mere existence of differing decisions of the Court of Cassation chambers and the Assembly of Civil or Criminal Chambers that relate only to a specific dispute and have not become settled cannot justify unification of case law.

6. Assessment of the preliminary issue

In light of the above explanations, the preliminary issue is assessed as follows.

The wages of truck drivers working in domestic transport may be agreed between the parties as a fixed time-based wage, or they may take the form of a bonus paid per trip or per kilometer in addition to a fixed wage.

The wages of truck drivers working internationally are generally set on the basis of the minimum wage plus a trip-based bonus. In some employer practices, the minimum wage, referred to as the guaranteed wage, is not paid at all and only the trip-based bonus is paid. In the latter case, the truck driver's pay consists solely of trip bonuses.

In practice, the trip bonus is referred to as a travel allowance and may vary depending on the destination country. However, the concepts of travel allowance and bonus are not related to each other. A bonus is additional pay given to reward the employee for work successfully performed in terms of quality and quantity. It is also intended to encourage the employee to work better, more successfully and more productively. In some cases, a bonus may even be agreed as the employee's basic wage, provided that it does not fall below the minimum wage. As a result, bonuses paid continuously and regularly form part of wages in the broad sense and are taken into account in calculating certain employee receivables such as severance pay and notice pay.

A travel allowance, on the other hand, includes travel expenses, daily allowance, family expenses and relocation expenses. It is a payment to which a person may become entitled for one, several or all of these under the Travel Allowance Law.

Whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages is a problem frequently encountered in practice. Although this varies by workplace or business, the money paid is seen to cover mainly expenses such as fuel needed for the trip, road and bridge tolls, taxes, fees and similar charges payable at certain customs points, and accommodation and food costs that are unavoidable for the driver.

It should be noted at this point that, within the scope of freedom of contract, the employee and the employer may expressly agree that this payment is part of wages, or that it is paid as a travel allowance to cover necessary expenses. In that case, the outcome must be determined by taking the parties' intentions into account. Accordingly, with respect to the money given to the employee, the employer's own characterization or labeling is not decisive on its own. Holding otherwise could amount, in the context of social security law, to a breach of the employer's obligation to pay the employee's premiums. Where the parties disagree about the nature of the payment, certain criteria should be considered, such as whether the payment made by the employer was subject to any arrangement, how the driver spent the money paid, and whether those expenses were documented.

This examination should establish whether the payment can be included in wages or whether it can be accepted as a travel allowance. In other words, taking the particular features of each case into account, it must be determined whether the payment can be clearly separated out as business expenses unrelated to the employee personally and whether it was given solely for necessary vehicle-related expenses. Close attention must also be paid to whether any amount remains with the employee after these expenses.

On the other hand, the principle of party presentation applies in employment law. Accordingly, where the truck driver's wage is disputed, the court should reach its conclusion based on the evidence produced by the parties. If no definite conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence, however, the court should, upon request, obtain wage research from the relevant employee and employer professional organizations and, where necessary, from trade unions. It should determine how much the employee could earn per trip by specifying the countries to which the employee carried goods, or the distances traveled, during the period of employment, and assess this together with the other evidence in the file.

In social security law, by contrast, the principle of ex officio investigation applies and the court is not bound by the evidence submitted by the parties. In this context, in determining the employee's earnings subject to premiums, only the necessary vehicle-related expenses should be separated out from the payments made to the employee under the names of trip bonus, trip allowance or travel allowance, and the remaining amount should be determined. For this purpose, documents such as payment receipts, tax and fee payments, bridge, highway, weighbridge and parking charges, phone credit, telephone, fax, photocopy and fuel expenses, customs exit slips and advance vouchers should be examined. After the necessary vehicle-related expenses have been separated out, the employee's actual wage must be determined accordingly. Because of this feature, the wage amount accepted and awarded by the court in a case for employee receivables is not binding in actions for determination of earnings subject to premiums arising from social security law. Conversely, the wage amount determined and awarded in an action for determination of earnings subject to premiums will be binding in cases for employee receivables.

In light of the above, it is clear that the nature of the payment made to a truck driver for each trip will be determined in each case file, taking into account the specific facts and the state of the evidence. This involves examining whether there is an employment contract between the parties, whether the parties made an express arrangement on this point and, in the absence of such an arrangement, whether the payment was made for business purposes and for the necessary expenses of the vehicle.

At the same time, the fundamental differences noted above between employment law and social security law regarding the production of evidence and proof must also be taken into account.

Furthermore, it was found that there is no conflict among the decisions of the Court of Cassation 9th and 22nd Civil Chambers, which review appeals in cases concerning employee receivables, holding that the trip bonus paid to a truck driver for each trip is part of wages. Nor is there any conflict among the decisions of the Court of Cassation 10th and 21st Civil Chambers, which review appeals in cases arising from social security law. For this reason, these Chambers expressed the view that there is no need for unification of case law in the present dispute.

In view of these findings, since whether a payment is accepted as wages or as a travel allowance must be assessed according to the particular features of each case, it was concluded that it would be inappropriate for a decision on the dispute subject to unification to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.

In light of all the explanations above, unification of case law was requested on “whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus, and whether it is to be taken into account in calculating severance pay and earnings subject to social security premiums”. Nevertheless, it was concluded that there is no need for unification of case law, for the following reasons. The principle of party presentation applies in cases concerning employee receivables, while the principle of ex officio investigation applies in cases arising from social security legislation. Accordingly, in each case file the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.

IV. Conclusion

At the conclusion of the deliberations on the preliminary issue in the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law, unification of case law had been requested on “whether money paid to domestic and international truck drivers for each trip is a travel allowance or wages/bonus, and whether it is to be taken into account in calculating severance pay and earnings subject to social security premiums”. On October 4, 2019, at the first deliberation, it was unanimously decided that there is no need for unification of case law. The reasons are as follows. The principle of party presentation applies in cases concerning employee receivables, while the principle of ex officio investigation applies in cases arising from social security legislation. Accordingly, in each case file the payment may be classified either as wages or as a travel allowance depending on the specific facts and the state of the evidence. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose a restriction incompatible with the purpose of unification of case law decisions, which lay down abstract and general rules applicable to all disputes of the same kind and whose fundamental aim is to ensure consistency and coherence in the law.