The Liability Of The Owner Of A Workplace Closed Due To Terrorism For Notice And Severance Pay
Supreme Court of Appeals of the Republic of Turkey
22nd Civil Chamber
Case No.: 2015/18830
Decision No.: 2017/24921
Date of Decision: November 15, 2017
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS CASE – PURSUANT TO THE RELEVANT LAW PROVISION
IN THE TERMINATION, THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO SENIORITY INDEMNITY
HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYER MUST COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION CONDITION OR
PAY NOTICE INDEMNITY –
REJECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR NOTICE INDEMNITY
SUMMARY: The employer’s termination is based on just cause in accordance with Article 25/III of Law No. 4857. Under the said article, although severance pay must be paid to the employee in the event of termination, the employer has no obligation to comply with the notice requirement or pay notice compensation. Therefore, the court’s decision to accept the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation was erroneous and must be reversed.
(Law No. 4857, Article 25) (Law No. 1475, Article 14)
Case: The defendant’s representative requested an appeal review of the decision rendered in the case between the parties, and it was determined that the appeal request was timely. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge …
was heard, and the case was reviewed, discussed, and considered:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the defendant employer unjustly terminated the plaintiff’s employment contract without notice
and demanded the collection of severance pay, notice pay, and a portion of the wages owed to the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant’s attorney argued that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to force majeure and that the plaintiff was therefore not entitled to notice compensation, requesting that the case be dismissed. Based on the evidence gathered by the court and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case. The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unfounded.
1-Based on the documents in the file, the evidence gathered, and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, the defendant’s
appeal objections outside the scope of the following paragraphs are unfounded.
2-Paragraph (III) of Article 25 of Labor Law No. 4857 states that if a compelling reason arises that prevents the employee from working at the workplace for more than one week, the employer has the right to terminate the contract immediately.
3-In the event of termination of the employment contract for compelling reasons in accordance with Article 25/III of Law No. 4857, In the event of termination of the employment contract for compelling reasons pursuant to Article 25/III of Law No. 4857,
the employer is not obligated to comply with the notification requirement or pay severance pay.
However, severance pay must be paid in accordance with Article 14 of the repealed Labor Law No. 1475. In the specific dispute, the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer pursuant to Article 25 of Law No. 4857 on the grounds that the conditions arising from the events that occurred in … eliminated the possibility of work.
Article 25(III) of Law No. 4857. The events that took place in … and the civil war that followed arewell-known facts, and this situation is a compelling reason that prevented the employee from working at the workplace
for more than a week. In this case, the employer’s termination is based on just cause in accordance with Article 25/III of Law No. 4857.
Although severance pay must be paid to the employee in the event of termination in accordance with the aforementioned article, the employer is not obliged to comply with the notification requirement or pay notice compensation. Therefore, the court should have rejected the plaintiff’s claim for notice compensation, and its acceptance was erroneous and required reversal.
Result: The appealed decision was REVERSED for the reasons stated above, and it was unanimously decided on November 15, 2017, that the advance appeal fee
would be refunded to the relevant party upon request.