Employee’s Marriage And Relocation To Another City – Severance Pay Supreme Court Decision
Supreme Court of Appeals of the Republic of Turkey
9th Civil Chamber
Case No: 2007/14430
Decision No: 2008/8214
Date of Decision: 11.04.2008
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS CASE – THE PLAINTIFF STATED THAT HE MOVED TO THIS CITY
DUE TO HIS SPOUSE’S JOB BEING IN ANOTHER PROVINCE
– THE REASON FOR THE PROVINCE CHANGE WAS MARRIAGE
– THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR SENIORITY COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED
AS REQUIRED
SUMMARY: The plaintiff states that he moved to this city due to his spouse’s employment in another province.
In this case, the reason for the change of province stems from the marriage. Therefore,
the plaintiff’s claim for severance pay must be accepted.
(Labor Code No. 1475, Article 14)
Case: The plaintiff requested a decision ordering the payment of severance pay.
The local court dismissed the case.
The case file was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the appeal period, and the report prepared by Review
Judge Y. Tekbaş, the case file was reviewed, and the necessary discussions and
considerations were made:
Decision: It is not disputed that the plaintiff woman married on August 2, 2003, and stated in a letter to the employer on August 21, 2003,
that she was leaving her job due to a change of residence.
The court decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for severance pay on the grounds that the petition did not cite marriage as the reason for termination.
Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 1475 provides that if a woman terminates her employment contract within one year of her marriage
at her own discretion, severance pay shall be paid. In the present case, the plaintiff states that she married and moved to this city
because her spouse’s job was in another province.
This situation also indicates that the reason for the change of province is due to marriage. In this case, the reason for the change of province is the marriage.
It has not been claimed that the change of province and the termination are based on another reason.
According to the established case law of our Chamber, the reason for termination may be explained in the complaint, and the actual reason is determined by the court.
Under these circumstances, it is erroneous to issue a written ruling instead of accepting the plaintiff’s claim for seniority compensation.
Result: The appealed decision is REVERSED for the reasons stated above, and the advance appeal fee is to be refunded to the relevant party upon request.
The decision was made unanimously on April 11, 2008.