1-GENERAL INFORMATION
The employer’s right to immediate termination for just cause is regulated in Article 25 of the Labor Law No. 4857. The relevant article regulates the reasons giving rise to the employer’s right to immediate termination under different headings. These are organized under four main headings: (1) health reasons, (2) cases of non-compliance with rules of morality and good faith and similar cases, (3) compelling reasons, and (4) the employee’s absence due to arrest or detention exceeding a certain period.
Whether the employment contract signed with the employee is for a fixed or indefinite term is irrelevant to the employer’s right to terminate the contract immediately for just cause.
Article 18 of the same Law regulates the employer’s right to terminate for valid reasons. The termination cases in question are regulated under two main headings in the law: (1) valid reasons arising from the employee’s competence or conduct and (2) valid reasons arising from the requirements of the business, workplace, or job.
2-RIGHT TO TERMINATION FOR VALID REASONS
As stated above, the right to termination for valid reasons, as regulated in Article 18 of the Labor Law, is grouped under two main headings.
Reasons arising from the employee’s competence or behavior:
The employee’s incompetence can be divided into two categories: the employee’s physical incompetence and the employee’s professional incompetence. The employee’s illness, old age, and retirement are considered cases of physical inadequacy. The employee’s professional inadequacy, on the other hand, refers to the employee’s lack of ability to make quick decisions and take initiative. The Court of Appeals has ruled that professional inadequacy requires the employee’s performance to be lower than that of other employees doing the same job and that this situation must be continuous.
According to Article 19/2 of the Labor Law, before terminating an employment contract due to reasons related to the employee’s competence or behavior, the employee must be given the opportunity to submit a written defense. Termination of the employment contract without obtaining the employee’s written defense will not be considered termination for valid reasons.
Valid reasons arising from the requirements of the business, workplace, and job:
In every termination based on this valid reason, a decision is made as to whether the reason is valid, taking into account the specific circumstances. However, in general practice, there are basic criteria accepted by the Court of Cassation. When an employee’s employment contract is terminated for reasons arising from the requirements of the business, workplace, and job, termination must be resorted to as a “last resort.”
If it is possible to assign the employee to another job at the same workplace or to another workplace belonging to the business, but the employee is not assigned and their contract is terminated, this termination shall not be considered termination for valid cause.
When terminating an employee’s contract based on the aforementioned valid reason, the employer must try all possible solutions, and only resort to terminating the employee’s contract as a last resort if the solutions tried do not yield results.
3-DISTINCTION BETWEEN TERMINATION FOR JUST CAUSE AND TERMINATION FOR VALID REASON
In termination for valid reasons, the employee’s conduct that is contrary to the employment contract is brought to the fore, which is not one of the reasons specified in Article 25 of the Labor Law that gives the right to immediate termination.
The employer’s right to immediate termination is applicable to all employees covered by the Labor Law, but the right to termination for valid reasons is only applicable to employees covered by Employment Security. In workplaces employing 30 or more workers, employees who have completed at least 6 months of service and are not employer representatives are covered by employment security provisions.
In cases of termination for just cause, the employee is performing their job but doing so inadequately, poorly, or insufficiently. The conduct providing grounds for just cause must not constitute a situation as serious as the conditions for just cause set out in Article 25 of the Labor Law. The common point between termination for just cause and termination for valid cause arising from the employee’s conduct is that they are both based on fault. The difference lies in the degree of seriousness of the fault.
For termination for just cause, there must be a reason that significantly damages the relationship, to the extent that the employer cannot be expected to continue the employment contract. For termination for valid cause, there must be a reason that, while not as significant as just cause, nevertheless makes the continuation of the employment contract impossible.
When one of the grounds for termination for cause arises, the employer shall have the right to terminate the employment contract immediately and shall not be obliged to pay severance pay to the employee. However, in cases of termination for just cause, the employment contract may be terminated under certain conditions specified in the law, the employee will be granted the notice periods specified in the law or paid notice compensation, and the severance pay to which the employee is entitled will be paid to them.
4-TERM OF USE OF THE RIGHT OF TERMINATION
In dismissals carried out by the employer under Article 25/II of the Labor Law, the term for exercising the right of immediate termination is limited to 6 working days.
The employer’s authority to terminate the contract based on cases of non-compliance with the rules of morality and good faith may not be exercised after 6 working days have passed from the date the employer learned of the employee’s misconduct, and in any case, after one year has passed since the act occurred. However, if the employee has gained material benefit from the incident, the one-year period does not apply.
Even if the employer has the right to dismiss the employee without compensation for just cause, if the period stipulated by law has been missed, the employer can no longer dismiss the employee without compensation for just cause, but can dismiss them with compensation for valid cause.
Although the employer has the right to terminate the employee without compensation for just cause, if the period stipulated by law is missed, the employer can now terminate the employee with compensation for valid cause instead of terminating them without compensation for just cause. Following the employer’s discovery of the cause for termination that gives rise to the termination of the employee’s employment contract for a valid reason, the employer must exercise the right of termination within a “reasonable period.”
We would like to note that the law does not specify a reasonable period and that the Supreme Court examines the criterion of reasonable period separately for each specific case.
FINALLY;
Both termination for just cause and termination for valid cause, the differences between which are explained above, are circumstances that allow the employer to terminate the employment contract signed with the employee. Termination based on valid cause does not involve as serious reasons as termination based on just cause. While both grounds for termination share common elements, the degree of fault relied upon in termination for just cause is more severe than that in termination for valid cause. To define the boundaries of termination for valid cause, each specific case must be examined separately, and thus, it gains meaning through the judge’s discretion.