Article 25 of the Labor Law regulates the employer’s right to terminate for just cause. Accordingly, the employer may terminate the employment contract before the expiry of the period or without waiting for the notification period in cases that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill, such as sexual harassment by the employee, whether the period is fixed or not. In this case, the worker may be dismissed without paying severance and notice pay. The following examples can be given of behaviors that violate the rules of morality and goodwill; mislead the employer, the words and behaviors that will touch the honor and honor, sexual harassment, teasing and drunkenness, behavior that does not comply with honesty and loyalty, committing crimes in the workplace, absenteeism, failure to fulfill his duties, jeopardizing the work safety, damaging the employer’s property, etc.
For this reason, as can be seen in the example Supreme Court decision below, the employee’s contract was immediately terminated by the employer for just cause, due to the fact that the employee observed the dressing room of the female workers and sexually harassed the female workers. As a result of immediate termination by the employer for just cause, the worker will not be entitled to severance and notice pay.
However, it is accepted that it is not necessary to take the defense of the employee in order for the employer to use the right of immediate termination for just cause due to the employee’s behavior that does not comply with the moral and goodwill rules. In this case, the employer terminates the employment contract with a unilateral declaration of will.
The authority to terminate the contract granted to the employer based on situations that do not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill cannot be exercised after 6 working days have passed, starting from the day when one of the two parties learned that the other party has committed such behavior, and in any case, one year after the realization of the act.
However, if the employer has suffered any damage due to the employee’s behavior subject to termination, it has been regulated that he may demand compensation from the employee in accordance with the general provisions in accordance with Article 26/2 of the Labor Law.
JURISDICTION ON THE SUBJECT:
T.R. 7th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal No:2014/12153 Decision No:2014/20578K.Date:10.11.2014
The judgment rendered as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant’s attorney to be examined by the Supreme Court, and it was understood that the appeal request was timely. The file has been examined, the need has been discussed:
Plaintiff’s attorney; Declaring that his client worked at the defendant’s workplace between May 2002 and 29.06.2012, he was accused of “looking through the window of the female employees’ dressing room” on 28.06.2012 during dinner hours, and that he was dismissed without compensation after his client did not accept the accusation. demanded the defendant’s collection.
Attorney for the defendant; The plaintiff defended the rejection of the lawsuit by declaring that he had been working at his client’s workplace since 01.05.2002, and that his employment contract was terminated with just cause in accordance with Article 25/II (c) of the Labor Law due to “disturbing and offensive and unethical behavior towards female workers working at the workplace”.
By the court; “… and … seeing the person they stated they saw behind the foggy glass in the window, behind the fogged glass and in side profile, identifying them from the 2002 dated and scanned passport size attached to the Word in the office of the business manager and deciding that it was ….. and undressing women and men by the employer, It was decided to accept the case on the grounds that “……’s dismissal was unfair due to the inability to properly separate the toilets and sinks”.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the termination of the employment contract is based on a just cause.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff worker claimed that the employment contract was terminated without a just cause, and the defendant employer argued that the employment contract was terminated for just cause.
In the concrete case subject to termination, they claimed that the women’s locker room of ..and …, the employees of the defendant employer, was observed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff argued that there was no such event. However, both in the complaint filed by the workers named … and … with the employer, and in the discovery made by the court, they declared that the person who watched the locker room was the plaintiff. There is no enmity between the persons named above who make these accusations to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, which requires them to slander. The action in question was accepted as the employee’s sexual harassment of another employee of the employer, and the employment contract was accepted by the employer for just cause, and the rejection of the requests for severance and notice pay should be rejected, but the court’s decision to accept it with a written justification was wrong and necessitated reversal.
In that case, the appellant’s objections aiming at these aspects should be accepted and the decision should be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 10.11.2014 that the appealed decision be overturned for the reasons written above, and that the appeal fee paid in advance be returned to the defendant upon request.
