Notice of the Owner of the Workplace Closed Due to Terrorism Severance Pay Liability – Supreme Court Decision

T.C. SUPREME
22. Legal Department Main No: 2015/18830
Decision No :2017/24921
Decision Date: 15.11.2017
EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES CASE – IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT ARTICLE OF THE LAW
PAYMENT OF SEVERANCE PAY TO THE EMPLOYEE UPON TERMINATION
IF NECESSARY, THE EMPLOYER MUST COMPLY WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT OR
THERE ARE NO OBLIGATIONS TO PAY NOTIFICATION COMPENSATION –
DENIAL OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR WHISTLEBLOWER COMPENSATION
ABSTRACT: Termination of the employer is regulated by Article 25 / III of the Law No. 4857. according to the article, it is based on just cause. In the termination made pursuant to the said article, although the employee is required to be paid severance pay, the employer has no obligation to comply with the notification requirement or to pay notification compensation. In this case, while the court should have decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for whistleblowing compensation, its acceptance was erroneous and required to be overturned.
(4857 Pp. K. m. 25) (1475 P. K. m. 14)
Case: It was understood that the decision made as a result of the case between the parties was requested by the defendant’s attorney to be examined on appeal and that the appeal request was in Dec. After hearing the report prepared by the Examination Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client’s employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer unfairly and without prior notice, and requested the collection of severance and notice indemnities and some labor receivables that he claimed were not paid to the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated due to force majeure, therefore, he could not qualify for notification compensation. Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, it was decided to partially accept the case. The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.
1-According to the evidence collected in the articles in the file and the legally necessary reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant
appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not valid.
25 of the Labor Law No. 2-4857. in paragraph (III) of the Article, it is explained that the employer has the right to immediate termination if a compelling reason arises that prevents the employee from working at the workplace for more than a week. 25 / III of the Law No. 4857 on the compelling reasons of the employment contract. in case of termination pursuant to paragraph, the employer has no obligation to comply with the notification requirement or to pay notification compensation. However, Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 1475 has been abrogated. in accordance with the article, severance pay must be paid. In a concrete dispute, the plaintiff’s employment contract, the defendant’s employer … on the grounds that the conditions caused by the events that occurred in the 25 of the Law No. 4857 eliminate the possibility of working. it has been terminated in accordance with paragraph (III) of its Article. the events that took place in … and the subsequent civil war that began are a well-known case, and this is a compelling reason that prevents the employee from working at the workplace for more than a week. In this case, the termination of the employer is subject to Article 25 / III of the Law No. 4857. according to the article, it is based on just cause. In the termination made pursuant to the said article, although the employee is required to be paid severance pay, the employer has no obligation to comply with the notification requirement or to pay notification compensation. In this case, while the court should have decided to reject the plaintiff’s claim for whistleblowing compensation, its acceptance was erroneous and required to be overturned.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 15.11.2017 that the appealed decision would be OVERTURNED for the reason written above and that the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the relevant person if requested.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.