Publication: İş sözleşmesinin işçinin davranışından kaynaklanan geçerli sebeple feshi ve geçerli feshin hukuki sonuçları
Abstract
İş güvencesine ilişkin getirilen düzenlemeler ile iş sözleşmesinde zayıf konumda olan işçi, işverenin keyfi feshine karşı korunmaktadır. İş Güvencesi Kanunu olarak bilinen 4773 sayılı Kanun ve İş Kanunu m.18 hükmüyle iş güvencesi hükümlerinin yürürlükteki mevzuatta açık bir şekilde düzenlenmesiyle birlikte haklı sebeple fesih halinin yanında geçerli sebeple fesih hali de ortaya çıkmıştır. İş Kanunu m. 18 hükmü uyarınca işveren, iş güvencesi kapsamındaki işçilerin iş sözleşmesini işçinin davranışı, yetersizliği ya da işletmenin, işyerinin veya işin gereklerinden kaynaklanan geçerli bir sebebe dayanarak feshetmek zorundadır. Çalışma konumuz olan işçinin davranışından kaynaklı geçerli sebeple fesih hallerinin anlaşılabilir olması için işverenin İş Kanunu m.25/ II hükmünde belirtilen haklı sebeple fesih halleri ile davranış sebebiyle geçerli fesih halleri karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Haklı sebeple fesih sebepleri, usulü, süresi ve sonuçları ile geçerli sebeple fesih halleri, usulü, süresi ve sonuçları arasındaki farklılıkları ön plana çıkararak geçerli sebeple fesih hali açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. İş Kanunu m. 18 gerekçesinde örnek olarak belirtilen davranış sebebiyle geçerli fesih halleri ve gerekçede belirtilmeyen bazı davranış sebebiyle geçerli fesih halleri Yargıtay kararları, mevzuat ve doktrin görüşleri ile birlikte açıklanarak çalışma konusu somutlaştırılmıştır. Geçersiz feshin hukuki sonuçlarına ilişkin olarak; işçi tarafından feshe itiraz usulü, dava şartı arabuluculuk süreci, özel hakeme başvurulması, işe iade davası ve sonuçları ele alınmıştır.
With the introduction of job security regulations, employees who are in a weaker position within the employment contract are protected against arbitrary dismissal by employers. Law No. 4773, known as the Job Security Law and Article 18 of the Labor Law explicitly regulates job security provisions within the existing legislation, establishing not only dismissal for just cause but also dismissal for valid cause. According to Article 18, an employer must terminate the employment contract of employees covered by job security based on a valid reason arising from the employee’s behavior, incompetence, or the operational requirements of the business, workplace, or job. To ensure a clear understanding of dismissal due to an employee’s behavior, which is the primary focus of this study, a comparative analysis has been conducted between dismissals for just cause, as specified in Article 25/ II of the Labor Law, and dismissals for valid cause based on employee behavior. The study highlights the distinctions between these two forms of dismissal in terms of grounds, procedures, duration, and legal consequences. Termination for valid cause is examined by referencing both behavioral reasons explicitly stated in the rationale of Article 18 and additional behavioral reasons not explicitly mentioned, supported by Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and doctrinal perspectives. Regarding the legal consequences of invalid termination; the procedure for objection to termination by the employee, the mediation process as a condition of lawsuit, application to a special arbitrator, reinstatement lawsuit and its consequences are discussed.
With the introduction of job security regulations, employees who are in a weaker position within the employment contract are protected against arbitrary dismissal by employers. Law No. 4773, known as the Job Security Law and Article 18 of the Labor Law explicitly regulates job security provisions within the existing legislation, establishing not only dismissal for just cause but also dismissal for valid cause. According to Article 18, an employer must terminate the employment contract of employees covered by job security based on a valid reason arising from the employee’s behavior, incompetence, or the operational requirements of the business, workplace, or job. To ensure a clear understanding of dismissal due to an employee’s behavior, which is the primary focus of this study, a comparative analysis has been conducted between dismissals for just cause, as specified in Article 25/ II of the Labor Law, and dismissals for valid cause based on employee behavior. The study highlights the distinctions between these two forms of dismissal in terms of grounds, procedures, duration, and legal consequences. Termination for valid cause is examined by referencing both behavioral reasons explicitly stated in the rationale of Article 18 and additional behavioral reasons not explicitly mentioned, supported by Supreme Court rulings, legislation, and doctrinal perspectives. Regarding the legal consequences of invalid termination; the procedure for objection to termination by the employee, the mediation process as a condition of lawsuit, application to a special arbitrator, reinstatement lawsuit and its consequences are discussed.