Immediate termination of the employment contract by the employer for just cause is regulated in Article 25 of Labour Law No. 4857 (İş K.), and is a power granted to the employer for exceptional situations in which the continuation of the employment relationship can no longer be expected in accordance with the rules of good faith (objective good faith). This type of termination takes effect immediately, without waiting for notice periods (termination without notice).
Immediate termination for just cause carries greater legal weight than other types of termination, because if the termination is based on just cause, the employee is not entitled to notice pay. In addition, in terminations based on subparagraph (II) of Article 25 of the Labour Law (breach of the rules of morality and good faith), the employee also loses the right to severance pay.
From the employer's perspective, the grounds for immediate termination for just cause are grouped under four main headings in Labour Law Art. 25:
1. Health reasons (İş K. 25/I).
2. Conduct contrary to the rules of morality and good faith, and similar situations (İş K. 25/II).
3. Force majeure (İş K. 25/III).
4. Where the employee is taken into custody or arrested and the absence exceeds the notice period (İş K. 25/IV).
The grounds for just-cause termination are not listed exhaustively (tahdidi) in Labour Law Art. 25; in particular, the words "and similar situations" at the end of the cases of breach of the rules of morality and good faith allow the list to be extended. Whether a termination is justified must be determined by considering the extent to which the incident damaged the relationship of trust between the parties and whether the employer can be expected, in accordance with the rules of good faith, to continue the employment relationship.
Breaches of the Rules of Morality and Good Faith in the Light of Court of Cassation Decisions (İş K. 25/II)
Subparagraph (II) of Labour Law Art. 25 is the most critical termination ground and the one most often encountered in practice, because it allows the employer to terminate without paying compensation. Here are some of the sub-headings in this subparagraph, with examples supported by Court of Cassation decisions:
1. The Employee Misleading the Employer (İş K. 25/II-a)
It is a just cause for termination if, when the employment contract is being concluded, the employee misleads the employer by claiming to have qualifications on essential points of the contract that they do not have, or by giving untrue information.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ An employee's failure to inform the employer, before starting work at a bank, that a lawsuit had been filed against them alleging improper use of a POS terminal was considered to amount to misleading the employer.
✦ The Court of Cassation held that where smoking is prohibited at the workplace and the employee stated when concluding the employment contract that they did not smoke, smoking at the workplace may constitute just cause for termination on the grounds of misleading the employer and failing to follow instructions.
2. Words Offending Honour and Dignity, or False Accusations (İş K. 25/II-b)
It is a just cause for termination if the employee utters words offending the honour and dignity of the employer or a member of the employer's family, or makes false reports and accusations damaging their honour and reputation.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Insults and Swearing: Uttering insulting and abusive words in a way that other employees can hear is a ground for termination, even if the employer is not present.
✦ False Accusations: An employee making baseless, false reports and accusations damaging the employer's honour and reputation, such as accusing the employer of corruption or irregularities, constitutes just cause for termination.
✦ Right to Criticise: Words and conduct that stay within the limits of criticism and do not amount to defamation do not constitute just or valid cause for termination. The Court of Cassation considered an employee's statement to their superior, "you are delaying the tenders, you have cost us four years", to be criticism rather than an insult or disrespect, and therefore found the termination made on this ground to be invalid.
3. Sexual Harassment (İş K. 25/II-c)
An employee sexually harassing another employee of the employer gives the employer the right to terminate immediately. It does not matter whether the sexual harassment took place inside or outside the workplace.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Proof of Harassment: The fact that the alleged victim of sexual harassment did not file a complaint with the judicial authorities does not remove the employer's right to terminate immediately. A final conviction in criminal proceedings is not required for the employer to exercise the right of termination.
✦ Conduct Falling Short of Harassment: Acts such as spying on female employees' changing rooms are just cause for termination. Conduct that does not amount to harassment but may be considered inappropriate (for example, persistent phone calls or invitations to dinner) may constitute valid cause, not just cause.
4. Verbal or Physical Aggression, or Substance Use (İş K. 25/II-d)
It is a just cause for termination if the employee verbally or physically attacks (sataşma) the employer, a member of the employer's family or another employee, or comes to the workplace drunk or under the influence of drugs, or uses such substances at the workplace. Consuming alcohol at the workplace is a ground for termination even if it does not reach the point of drunkenness.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Aggression: An employee insulting and swearing at other employees at the workplace is just cause for termination. The contract of an employee who becomes involved in a fight or an insult after being provoked may also be terminated, provided the employer complies with its duty of equal treatment.
✦ Aggression Outside the Workplace: An employee calling another employee of the workplace to a park at night and fighting with them gives the right to terminate immediately, even though it happened outside the workplace.
✦ Drunkenness: Acts endangering work safety, such as an LPG tanker driver talking on a mobile phone while driving.
✦ Principle of No Second Sanction: If a warning or another disciplinary sanction has already been imposed for the same act of the employee, the contract cannot be terminated for the same act a second time (a second penalty cannot be imposed). For the termination to be accepted as valid, no disciplinary sanction other than termination must have been imposed in relation to the last incident.
5. Conduct Inconsistent with Honesty and Loyalty (İş K. 25/II-e)
It is a just cause for termination if the employee engages in conduct inconsistent with honesty and loyalty (the duty of loyalty), such as abusing the employer's trust, committing theft or disclosing the employer's professional secrets.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Working While on Sick Leave: An employee working at another workplace that may be a competitor while on sick leave is just cause for termination.
✦ Abuse of Trust: A security guard taking property belonging to the workplace outside the premises without permission (even if it is not theft) is a ground for termination, because it fundamentally undermines the employer's trust.
✦ Breach of Professional Secrets: Professional secrets cover concepts such as professional secrets, manufacturing secrets, trade secrets, technical matters belonging to the employer, financial relationships and the customer portfolio.
6. Persistent Refusal to Perform Duties (İş K. 25/II-h)
The employee persistently refuses to perform the duties they are obliged to perform despite being reminded of them. Unlike the former Law No. 1475, Law No. 4857 introduced the requirement of "persistence" for termination.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Nature of Persistence: Persistence must be continuous after the reminder. Failing to perform a duty only once should not be considered sufficient.
✦ Persistence Regarding Quality of Work: An employee persistently performing their work incompletely, poorly or inadequately despite warnings is a just cause, whereas persistently not performing it at all is just cause for termination. Even where the persistence requirement is not met, the Court of Cassation may accept that the termination is based on a valid reason on the grounds that it significantly and adversely affected the conduct of the work.
7. Endangering Work Safety or Damaging the Employer's Property (İş K. 25/II-ı)
The employee, of their own will (intent) or through carelessness (negligence), endangers the safety of the work, or causes damage and loss to the employer's property to an extent that cannot be paid off with thirty days' wages.
Examples and Court of Cassation Case Law:
✦ Damage to Property: It is accepted that the resulting damage should be calculated on the basis of the employee's gross wages for thirty days.
✦ Compensation for the Damage: Where the amount of damage exceeds 30 days' wages, even the fact that the employee has paid or will pay for the damage does not remove the employer's right of termination.
✦ Determining the Damage: Where the damage is less than the amount of thirty days' wages, the termination is not based on just cause; however, if this conduct has caused problems at the workplace, it is accepted as a valid ground for termination.
Time Limits for Exercising the Right (Forfeiture Periods)
When exercising the right of termination on the basis of the breaches of the rules of morality and good faith in Labour Law Art. 25/II, the employer must observe two forfeiture periods (İş K. 26):
1. The right of termination cannot be exercised after six working days have passed from the day the party learned that the other party had engaged in such conduct.
2. And in any case, it cannot be exercised after one year from the date of the act.
Exception: If the employee obtained a material benefit from the incident, the one-year period does not apply. In that case, it is sufficient to observe only the six-working-day period.
To use a brief analogy, the power to terminate immediately for just cause is like a "fire alarm" in employment law. For the employer to sound this alarm, the fire (the just cause) must really have started, and the situation must be so critical (destroying the basis of trust) that it cannot wait until the fire brigade (the court) arrives. Otherwise, an employer who sounds the alarm without justification will have to bear the consequences.
