25 of the Labor Code. The article regulates the right of the employer to immediate termination for the rightful reason. Accordingly, the employer may terminate the employment contract before the expiration of the period or without waiting for the notification period in cases where the employee does not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill, such as sexual harassment, whether it is specific or not. In this case, the employee may be dismissed without paying severance and notice compensation. The following examples of behaviors that constitute a violation of the rules of morality and goodwill can be given; the employee misleads the employer, remarks and behavior that will touch honor and honor, sexual harassment, teasing and drunkenness, behavior that does not correspond to accuracy and loyalty, committing a crime at work, absenteeism from work, non-performance of his duties, endangering occupational safety, damaging the employer’s property, etc.
For this reason, as can be seen in the exemplary Supreme Court decision below, the employee’s contract was terminated immediately by the employer for the right reason because the employee was spying on the dressing room of female workers and sexually harassing female workers. As a result of the immediate termination by the employer for the rightful reason, the employee will also not be entitled to severance and notice compensation.
However, it is accepted that in order for the employer to exercise the right of immediate termination for a justified reason due to the employee’s behavior that does not comply with the rules of morality and goodwill, the employee’s defense does not need to be taken. In this case, the employer terminates the employment contract with a unilateral statement of will.
The authority to terminate the contract recognized by the employer on the basis of non-compliance with the rules of morality and goodwill may not be used after 6 working days from the day the other party finds out that one of the two parties has committed this kind of behavior, and in any case one year after the fact that the act has occurred.
However, if the employer has suffered any damage due to the termination behavior of the employee, it has been regulated that he can claim compensation from the employee in accordance with Article 26/2 of the Labor Code in accordance with the general provisions.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE:
T.C. Court of Cassation 7. Legal Department Basis No:2014/12153 Decision No:2014/20578K.Date:10.11.2014
As a result of the case between the parties, it became clear that the decision Dec as a result of the examination by the Supreme Court was requested by the defendant’s deputy, and the appeal request was in due course. The case was reviewed and discussed as necessary:
Dec May 2002-29.06.2012, the plaintiff’s deputy declared that his client worked at the defendant’s workplace, was accused of “looking through the glass at the dressing room of female employees” during dinner hours on 28.06.2012, and was dismissed without compensation after his client did not accept the charge, demanded that the defendant collect severance and notice compensation receivables from the defendant.
The defendant’s deputy defended the dismissal of the case by declaring that the plaintiff, his client had been working at the workplace since 01.05.2002 and that the employment contract had been terminated for justified reason in accordance with Article 25/II(c) of the Labor Code due to “offensive and insulting and immoral behavior towards female workers working at the workplace”.
The court was told that “… and … the person they stated that they saw behind the fogged glass in the window saw behind the fogged glass and from the side profile, identifying him from the passport that was taken and scanned in 2002, pasted into the Word in the business manager’s room ….. it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that ”the dismissal of ……. was unfair because they decided that it was and that the men’s and women’s locker rooms, toilets and sinks were not properly separated by the employer.”
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the termination of the employment contract is based on the justified reason Dec
In the concrete case, the plaintiff claimed that the employee’s employment contract was terminated without a justifiable reason, while the defendant employer argued that the employment contract was terminated for a justifiable reason.
In the concrete case subject to termination, they claimed that the women’s locker room of the defendant employer’s employees, ve …, was being monitored by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that there was no such incident. However, the employees who filed a complaint …and … declared that the person who was spying on the locker room was the plaintiff both in the complaint application to the employer and in the discovery made by the court. There is no Decency between the above-mentioned persons who make these accusations to the plaintiff and the plaintiff that requires them to slander. The fact that the court decided to accept the severance and notice compensation requests on written grounds while the action in question should be considered as a sexual harassment of the employee by another employee of the employer and the termination of the employment contract by the employer for a justified reason should be decided is erroneous and required to be overturned.
In that case, the appeals of the defendant’s deputy aimed at these aspects must be accepted and the decision overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 10.11.2014 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons written above, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the defendant upon request.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.