If the workplace of the employee is changed by the employer, the employee may have the right to terminate the employment contract for just cause. Even if the transfer of the workplace to another location is accepted by the contract signed between the employee and the employer, the employer does not have unlimited authority.
Although the employer has the authority to transfer the employee by the contract between the parties, he must use this authority in accordance with the rule of honesty regulated in Turkish Civil Code art.2ugh the employer has the authority to transfer the employee by the contract between the parties, he must use this authority in accordance with the rule of honesty regulated in Turkish Civil Code art.2. The Supreme Court has emphasized in its well-lthough the employer has the authority to transfer the employee by the contract between the parties, he must use this authority in accordance with the rule of honesty regulated in Turkish Civil Code art.2. The Supreme Court has emphasized in its well-established decisions that “although the employer’s transfer authority arises from the contract, the abuse of this transfer authority must be subject to inspection in terms of arbitrariness and objectivity.” If the employer changes the place designated as the workplace and assigns the employee to another place, he must concretely reveal what need the assignment arises from. There is no obligation for the employee to accept the change made without having a need.
In case of termination of the contract by the employee for a justified reason based on a change of workplace, the proof that the transfer authority was made in accordance with objective goodwill rules will belong to the employer.
Changing the workplace of an employee is considered a fundamental change in working conditions. Article 22 of the Labor Lawhanging the workplace of an employee is considered a fundamental change in working conditions. Article 22 of the Labor Law According to article ; “The employer may make a fundamental change in the working conditions arising from the employment contract or from personnel regulations and similar sources that arhanging the workplace of an employee is considered a fundamental change in working conditions. Article 22 of the Labor Law According to article ; “The employer may make a fundamental change in the working conditions arising Changing the workplace of an employee is considered a fundamental change in working conditions. Article 22 of the Labor Law According to article ; “The employer may make a fundamental change in the working conditions arising from the employment contract or from personnel regulations and similar sources that are annexes to the employment contract or from workplace practice only by notifying the employee in writing of the situation.” Changes that are not made in accordance with this form and are not accepted by the employee in writing within six working days do not bind the employee.”by being told, the provision protecting the worker has been introduced.
NOTIFICATION OBLIGATION
If the employer is going to make a change in the workplace, he/she must notify the employee in writing. If the notification is not made in accordance with the procedure, the employee will not be affected by these conditions. Additionally, the employee is not obliged to accept these newf the employer is going to make a change in the workplace, he/she must notify the employee in writing. If the notification is not made in accordance with the procedure, the employee will not be affected by these conditions. Additionally, the employee is not obliged to accept these new conditions. If the employee does not accept this change in writing within 6 days in response to the written notification made by the employer, these conditions will not affect the employee again.
In the precedent decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it was evaluated that the fact that the employment contract included a provision that the worker could be assigned to another workplace, but the worker was assigned to another city, was a change to the detriment of the worker and that the worker quitting the job based on this was a justified termination. (n Inn the precedent decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it was evaluated that the fact that the employment contract included a provision that the worker could be assigned to another workplace, but the worker was assigned to another city, was a change to the detriment of the worker and that the worker quitting the job based on this was a justified termination. (Supreme Court of Appeals 9th H.D. 2010/4631 E, 2012/12258 K, 11.04.2012 Date )
Article 24/2-f of the Labor Law No. 4857, which regulates the grounds for termination by the employee, stipulates that if the “working conditions are not implemented”, the employee has the opportunity to terminate immediately and for just cause.rticle 24/2-f of the Labor Law No. 4857, which regulates the grounds for termination by the employee, stipulates that if the “working conditions are not implemented”, the employee has the opportunity to terminate immediately and for just cause. In this case, taking into account the rights granted to the employee by the law, the employee will be able to terminate the employment contract for a justified reason and immediately with the right of termination for a justified reason.
In this case, the employee will have the right to demand severance pay, wages, bonuses, overtime pay, annual leave pay, weekend pay, national holiday and general holiday pay and similar labor receivables after exercising the right to terminate for just cause.