1) The termination of the employment contract of an employee, who was first punished with the penalty of reprimand due to argument and fight, is an unjust termination since two separate penalties cannot be given for the same action.
“On 05.09.2014, the plaintiff and his colleague … argued, and afterwards … walked over the plaintiff and squeezed his throat, threw a tool in the plaintiff's hand at … and they fought. He started to run towards the section where … was with the fringe and again the other workers prevented the plaintiff. After the incident, it is understood that both the plaintiff and … were sentenced to condemnation, and this time on 10.09.2014, a termination notice was issued for the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated with just cause, on the basis of the incident dated 05.09.2014. Thus, on 05.09.2014, the plaintiff's work contract was terminated for the same reason after the plaintiff, who was first punished with condemnation due to the argument and fight he had with his colleague.
Since two separate penalties cannot be imposed for the same action, the termination of the work contract of the plaintiff is unfair, and the rejection of the severance and notice pay claims with written justification is wrong.” (9th Civil Chamber Case No:2016/12229, Decision No:2020/610)
2) Termination of the employment contract with the data obtained by the employer as a result of the unannounced follow-up program installed on the employee's computer is not deemed unjust termination.
“As a result of the right of management of the employer, it is always possible to monitor and follow the employee electronically. However, it is essential that the employee is informed about this monitoring. Failure to inform or secretly monitor the employee that the employee is being monitored should be considered unlawful, even if the data obtained as a result of this monitoring clearly reveal that the employment contract has been violated by the employee. However, in the concrete case, it should be accepted that it is not possible to put forward the information obtained by the employer as a justified reason for termination. (22th Civil Chamber Case No: 2017/21857, Decision No: 2019/9884)
3) If the labor claims are not paid, the employee may terminate the employment contract for a just cause.
“The plaintiff employee terminated the employment contract with a just cause due to unpaid labor receivables on 04.09.2014 and afterward, declared this situation in the response notice drawn up on 22.09.2014 upon the warning letter sent by the defendant employer and informed the employer that he terminated the employment contract for justified reasons. The plaintiff employee has also explained the reason for the termination of the lawsuit filed in a short time. In this case, it should be accepted that the employment contract has been terminated for a just cause since the plaintiff employee has not paid overtime wages, and the post-absenteeism minutes issued by the employer and the termination letter should not be valued.
While it should be accepted that the plaintiff is entitled to severance pay, the decision of the court to reject the request in writing was erroneous and required the reversal.” (9th Civil Chamber Case No: 2016/12320, Decision No: 2020/1201)
4) The burden of proof that wages and overtime wages are paid is on the employer. In the event that the employer does not fulfill the burden of proof, the employee is deemed to have terminated the contract with unjust termination.
“In the concrete case, although the court's justification regarding the April 2014 remuneration is appropriate, the plaintiff also terminated the employment contract on the grounds that previous wages were paid irregularly and delayed. In this case, the burden of proving that the previous wages were paid in full and on time lies with the defendant employer, and the defendant employer did not respond to the case, showed no evidence and did not participate in the case. Since the defendant employer did not fulfill the burden of proof on his, the termination based on the justification that the previous wages of the plaintiff employee were not paid on time, and the severance pay must be accepted. It is wrong to decide that the termination is not justified by focusing only on the last month's wage and the rejection of severance pay.” (9th Civil Chamber Case No: 2017/16525, Decision No: 2020/6601)
5) “Since the workplace transfer is not in the nature of termination, it is not possible to claim the termination rights due to the transfer. Likewise, as a rule, workplace transfer does not give the employee the right to terminate.” (9th Civil Chamber Case No: 2017/13989, Decision No: 2020/3043)
6) When the employer tells the employee the proposal to change the working conditions as "either accept it now or leave the job", it indicates that the employment contract has been unfairly terminated.
“It was proposed by the employer on 03.10.2014 for a working system of 12 hours work and 12 hours rest. Although he stated that he could evaluate these working conditions after the holidays, the employer answered that there are many people who will work instead of either accept it now or leave the job. This means that the plaintiff's employment has been terminated. It is determined from the scope of the file that the employment termination as claimed by the plaintiff is confirmed by the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses. In this case, the plaintiff's employment contract should be accepted by the defendant employer unjustly and without notice, and it is not correct to decide on the rejection of the plaintiff's request for compensation.” (22th Civil Chamber Case No: 2017/22296, Decision No2019/10739)