In disputes arising from the termination of the employment agreement by the employer, although the issue of whether the employment agreement is terminated with just cause or valid reason does not have an impact in terms of the evaluation of the reinstatement request, it is crucial in terms of requesting employment claims.
Yet, when the employment agreement is terminated with a valid reason or just cause, the reinstatement request shall be rejected in both cases, whereas the severance and notice pay request shall be accepted if the termination constitutes a valid reason, and rejected if it constitutes a just cause.
In practice, it is observed that while some courts have clear determinations regarding the type of termination, some other courts do not make a clear determination as to whether the termination constitutes a just cause or valid reason while deciding on the employee's reinstatement requests. In this context, for example, the following decisions are encountered:
- "even if the termination is not considered as a just cause termination, there is a valid termination" after it is determined that there is a just cause termination in the concrete case, or
- "the reinstatement request should be rejected" by evaluating only the concrete case without any assessment of just cause or valid reason in any way, or
- "the termination constitutes at least a valid reason", considering that whether the employment agreement is terminated with just cause or not can be discussed as a result of a public prosecution or within the framework of a possible action for damages to be filed by the employee.
In a recent case where the reinstatement lawsuits were filed by three employees, although the facts are the same, the Regional Courts of Appeal took different approaches as "the termination is not based on just cause, but there is a valid reason" and "the legality of the termination should be discussed in a future action for employment claims, but at least the existence of a valid reason is accepted", and this matter was sent to the Court of Cassation by the Board of Presidents of the Civil Chambers of the Regional Courts of Appeal.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation with its decision dated 11.09.2023 and numbered E. 2023/14011 K. 2023/11613 (the "Decision") emphasized that every just cause also constitutes a valid reason, but that not every unjust cause of termination constitutes an invalid cause of termination, and that the acceptance of the existence of at least a valid reason for the reinstatement action by leaving the determination of the legality of the termination to a possible future action for employment claims is not applicable in all cases.
In this framework, the Decision particularly criticizes the fact that the assessment of whether the termination constitutes a just cause or not is left to a possible future action for employment claims, and only the assessment of valid reason is being made for an existing reinstatement case. According to the Decision, in cases where there is no fact that may change the outcome in the future, such as a criminal case, the legality of the termination shall be evaluated within the scope of the available evidence, and this evaluation shall not be left to the action for employment claims.
In practice, in parallel with the Decision, we experience that the decisions containing ambiguous expressions regarding the type of termination in the reinstatement actions are reversed at the appeal stage and the cases are sent back to the first instance courts in order for the determination of the termination type. In cases where the first instance courts do not make a clear determination in this way, the judicial process is prolonged. We believe that the Decision will serve to prevent the prolongation of the judicial process, by determining the termination type in the proceedings before the first instance courts.
Another impact of the clear determination of the termination type in reinstatement actions will be for the action for employment claims. That is to say, as it is accepted in the decisions of the Court of Cassation, the reasoning is strictly bound to the judgment in the finalized reinstatement actions, it is within the scope of finality in material sense and this finality is binding for the actions for employment claims. Therefore, the determination to be made by the labor courts regarding the termination type within the scope of the reinstatement actions directly affects a possible claim request of the employee. As such, ambiguous statements regarding the determination of the termination type in the reinstatement actions also prolongs the judicial process in terms of actions for employment claims, and we believe that the Decision will serve procedural economy in this respect.
Special thanks to Beyza Tuğçe Bozalp for her contributions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.