Publication: işe Başlatmama Tazminatının Belirlenmesinde Emekliliğin Ölçüt Olarak Değerlendirilmesi
Abstract
İş Kanunu'nun 21. maddesi uyarınca, mahkeme veya özel hakem tarafından feshin geçersizliğine karar verildiğinde, işçinin başvurusu üzerine işveren tarafından bir ay içinde işe başlatılmaz ise, işçiye ödenmek üzere en az dört, en çok sekiz aylık ücreti tutarında tazminatın belirlenmesi gerekir. İşe başlatmama tazminatı olarak adlandırılan bu tazminatın miktarının hesaplanmasında Yargıtay uygulaması ile "emeklilik" ölçütü dikkate alınmaya başlanmış ve emekliliğe hak kazananlar için işe başlatmama tazminatının alt sınırdan kararlaştırmasına ilişkin uygulama yerleşmiştir. Ancak daha sonra 7. Hukuk Dairesi aksi yönde içtihat geliştirmiş ve işe başlatmama tazminatının belirlenmesinde emekliliği ölçüt olarak dikkate almamaya başlamıştır. 9. Hukuk Dairesi ile 22. Hukuk Dairesinin kararları da zaman içinde dalgalanmıştır. Söz konusu Dairelerin son kararlarında emeklilik ölçütünün tamamen terk edilmediği ancak eski içtihatlardan farklı olarak her geçerli fesih için de uygulanmadığı gözlenmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, işe başlatmama tazminatının belirlenmesinde emekliliğin ölçüt oluşturup oluşturmadığının değerlendirilmesidir. Konu, gerçek zemini olan "yaş ayırımcılığı yasağı" çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır.
According to Article 21 of the Employment Act, if the court or the arbitrator concludes that the termination of employment agreement is invalid, a compensation shall be determined to be paid in case the employer does not reinstate the employee to in work within one month upon employee’s application. The compensation, to be not less than the employee’s four months’ salary and not more than eight months’ salary, is called as job security compensation. As per the previous precedents of Court of Cassation, “retirement” should have been taken into consideration when determining the amount of job security compensation. In such a case, the court or arbitrator should have decided the job security compensation as four months’ salary which is the lower limit. However, later, 7th Civil Chamber created a counter-precedent and started not taking account whether the employee was retired or not when determining the amount of job security compensation. The decisions of 9th and 22nd Civil Chambers were not always in line with the former precedent and varied in years. In very recent precedents, it is observed that they both neither completely reject the criteria of retirement nor apply it for all the terminations with valid reason. In this article, it will be discussed whether “retirement” should be taken into consideration when determining the job security compensation amount within the scope of prohibition of age discrimination.
According to Article 21 of the Employment Act, if the court or the arbitrator concludes that the termination of employment agreement is invalid, a compensation shall be determined to be paid in case the employer does not reinstate the employee to in work within one month upon employee’s application. The compensation, to be not less than the employee’s four months’ salary and not more than eight months’ salary, is called as job security compensation. As per the previous precedents of Court of Cassation, “retirement” should have been taken into consideration when determining the amount of job security compensation. In such a case, the court or arbitrator should have decided the job security compensation as four months’ salary which is the lower limit. However, later, 7th Civil Chamber created a counter-precedent and started not taking account whether the employee was retired or not when determining the amount of job security compensation. The decisions of 9th and 22nd Civil Chambers were not always in line with the former precedent and varied in years. In very recent precedents, it is observed that they both neither completely reject the criteria of retirement nor apply it for all the terminations with valid reason. In this article, it will be discussed whether “retirement” should be taken into consideration when determining the job security compensation amount within the scope of prohibition of age discrimination.