128 Cases of Joint Liability Arising from Occupational Accidents of the main employer in case the sub-employer’s employee is exposed to an occupational accident. One of the opinions in the doctrine bases the source of the primary employer’s duty of care over the subcontractor’s employees on “debt relations independent of performance obligations”. In this case, the parties in social contact have an obligation to ensure that the persons under the protection of each other are not harmed, and in the event that a damage occurs as a result of this performance-independent debt relationship, contractual liability provisions may be applied.40 According to the other opinion in the doctrine, which we also agree with, the subcontracting relationship is an institution specific to labour law and therefore, the solution of the problems should be sought within the labour law.41 Again, determining the source of the duty of supervision as debt relations independent of the performance and directly holding the main employer responsible will not be in accordance with the nature of the work. This is because, even though the sub-employer performs the work at the principal employer’s workplace, sub-employers should know the work they are carrying out and the risks that may arise. Therefore, the person who will take direct action to ensure occupational health and safety is the sub-employer. It is not possible to accept the existence of an operational supervision obligation of the main employer.42 The responsibility of the principal employer towards the subemployer’s employees is clearly regulated in the Law. Accordingly, the principal employer is jointly liable with the sub-employer for the obligations arising from the Labor Law, the employment contract and the collective labour agreement to which the sub-employer is a party. What is meant by joint liability here is, of course, joint liability.43 40 Aydın Başbuğ, “Alt İşveren İşçisi ile Asıl İşveren Arasındaki Borç İlişkisi ve Bu İlişkinin Doğurduğu Hukuki Sorunlar”, Kamu İş, Vol. 4, Issue. 3, Ocak 1998, p. 65 et seq; İbrahim Aydınlı, “İşverenin Edimden Bağımsız Olan Koruma Yükümlülüğüne, Normun Koruma Amacı (Hukuka Aykırılık Bağı) Bakımından Bir Yaklaşım”, (www.tuhis.org.tr/pdf/811.pdf, AD. 04.11.2021); Eren, Genel, p. 43. 41 Levent Akın, İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği ve Alt İşverenlik (Alt İşverenlik), Yetkin Yayınevi, Ankara 2013, p. 175. 42 Özdemir, p. 223. See also, Demet Belverenli, “Alt İşveren İlişkisinden Doğan İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Yükümlülükleri”, İÜHFM, Vol. 74, Prof. Dr. Fevzi Şahlanan’a Armağan Issue, p. 210. 43 Çelik/Caniklioğlu/Canbolat/Özkaraca, p. 129; Süzek, p. 165.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1