tr
İş Kanunu'nun 79. maddesiyle korunan işçi, 70. maddenin "ç" bendi ile işten çıkarılmasına hak kazandırıldı
İş Kanunu'nun 79. maddesiyle korunan işçi, 70. maddenin "ç" bendi ile işten çıkarılmasına hak kazandırıldı
The Supreme Court has issued a decision regarding disputes between employees and employers. Before presenting the explanation of the Supreme Court related to this case, it should be noted that, based on Article 79 of the Labor Code, the termination of the employment contract under paragraph "ç" of Article 70 is prohibited for individuals belonging to the following social categories:
- Pregnant women;
- Women with children under the age of three;
- Men who raise children under the age of three on their own;
- Employees whose only source of income is the institution they work for and who raise a child under school age on their own;
- Employees who have a family member with a disability recognized before the age of 18, or a family member with a disability due to a 81-100% loss of bodily functions.
Now, we present the information from the Supreme Court. According to the information, the Supreme Court has established a unified judicial practice regarding the application of paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code in relation to employees whose employment contracts are prohibited from being terminated.
It is reported that, based on the circumstances of the case, the employee (plaintiff) worked as a medical specialist in one of the polyclinics. By the order of the polyclinic dated 17.05.2022, the plaintiff was dismissed based on paragraph "f" of Article 72 of the Labor Code (committing administrative violations directly at the workplace during working hours), considering the circumstances, and based on paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code (when an employee fails to perform their labor functions or obligations, or grossly violates their labor duties as listed in Article 72 of this Code).
The case further reveals that a criminal investigation was initiated against the plaintiff, but later, it was determined that there were no criminal elements in the plaintiff’s actions. An administrative protocol was drawn up under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The first instance court, considering the matter, imposed a three-month administrative detention. From the date of detention, the plaintiff did not attend work and did not fulfill their labor functions. Upon the determination of the detention, the employment contract was terminated in accordance with paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code, and the plaintiff was relieved of their position. The plaintiff appealed to the court, requesting the annulment of the dismissal order, reinstatement to their position, and payment of wages for the forced absence.
The first-instance court upheld the plaintiff's complaint. The defendant then appealed the decision. The appellate court partially upheld the complaint. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What is the position of the Cassation court?
The Supreme Court believes that if an employee commits acts at the workplace that demonstrate administrative violations, and their guilt is established, forcing the employer to continue the employment relationship with them violates the fundamental principle of ensuring legal equality between the parties in labor relations. In cases where an employee commits gross violations of their labor functions and duties, as outlined in Article 72 of the Labor Code, the employer has the right to terminate the labor relationship. However, in such cases, there must be a clear causal link between the event and the protected circumstances. If such a causal link is not established, limiting the employer's rights under Article 79 of the Labor Code creates an unequal environment in labor relations.
In this case, the appellate court's decision, which partially upheld the plaintiff’s claim and reinstated them to their previous position, cannot be considered fair and legal based on the reasoning stated in the decision.
The Cassation Court, by the decision of the Civil Chamber, upheld the cassation appeal. The appellate court's decision was annulled, and a new decision was made in the case.
The Supreme Court has issued a decision regarding disputes between employees and employers. Before presenting the explanation of the Supreme Court related to this case, it should be noted that, based on Article 79 of the Labor Code, the termination of the employment contract under paragraph "ç" of Article 70 is prohibited for individuals belonging to the following social categories:
- Pregnant women;
- Women with children under the age of three;
- Men who raise children under the age of three on their own;
- Employees whose only source of income is the institution they work for and who raise a child under school age on their own;
- Employees who have a family member with a disability recognized before the age of 18, or a family member with a disability due to a 81-100% loss of bodily functions.
Now, we present the information from the Supreme Court. According to the information, the Supreme Court has established a unified judicial practice regarding the application of paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code in relation to employees whose employment contracts are prohibited from being terminated.
It is reported that, based on the circumstances of the case, the employee (plaintiff) worked as a medical specialist in one of the polyclinics. By the order of the polyclinic dated 17.05.2022, the plaintiff was dismissed based on paragraph "f" of Article 72 of the Labor Code (committing administrative violations directly at the workplace during working hours), considering the circumstances, and based on paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code (when an employee fails to perform their labor functions or obligations, or grossly violates their labor duties as listed in Article 72 of this Code).
The case further reveals that a criminal investigation was initiated against the plaintiff, but later, it was determined that there were no criminal elements in the plaintiff’s actions. An administrative protocol was drawn up under Article 227 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The first instance court, considering the matter, imposed a three-month administrative detention. From the date of detention, the plaintiff did not attend work and did not fulfill their labor functions. Upon the determination of the detention, the employment contract was terminated in accordance with paragraph "ç" of Article 70 of the Labor Code, and the plaintiff was relieved of their position. The plaintiff appealed to the court, requesting the annulment of the dismissal order, reinstatement to their position, and payment of wages for the forced absence.
The first-instance court upheld the plaintiff's complaint. The defendant then appealed the decision. The appellate court partially upheld the complaint. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What is the position of the Cassation court?
The Supreme Court believes that if an employee commits acts at the workplace that demonstrate administrative violations, and their guilt is established, forcing the employer to continue the employment relationship with them violates the fundamental principle of ensuring legal equality between the parties in labor relations. In cases where an employee commits gross violations of their labor functions and duties, as outlined in Article 72 of the Labor Code, the employer has the right to terminate the labor relationship. However, in such cases, there must be a clear causal link between the event and the protected circumstances. If such a causal link is not established, limiting the employer's rights under Article 79 of the Labor Code creates an unequal environment in labor relations.
In this case, the appellate court's decision, which partially upheld the plaintiff’s claim and reinstated them to their previous position, cannot be considered fair and legal based on the reasoning stated in the decision.
The Cassation Court, by the decision of the Civil Chamber, upheld the cassation appeal. The appellate court's decision was annulled, and a new decision was made in the case.