Attorney Ezgi Çabuk
Under the Labor Law, in certain cases the employer may terminate an employee's employment contract for just cause or valid cause. The Labor Law sets out the circumstances that may give rise to termination for just cause. Article 25 of the Labor Law reads as follows:
“Whether the contract is for a definite or an indefinite term, the employer may terminate the employment contract before the end of its term or without waiting for the notice period in the following cases:
II. Conduct contrary to the rules of morality and good faith and similar cases
(d) The employee verbally or physically attacking the employer, a member of the employer's family or another employee of the employer (amended phrase: Law No. 6331, Article 32/b, June 20, 2012), coming to the workplace drunk or under the influence of drugs, or using such substances at the workplace...”
Article 25(II)(d) of the Labor Law cited above shows that an employee attacking another employee is considered just cause for terminating the employee's employment contract. As its decisions show, the Court of Cassation also treats an employee insulting another employee of the employer as just cause.
In its decision (Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2014/14327, Decision No. 2014/22247, dated December 9, 2014), the Court held:
‘.... It is understood that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated on September 20, 2012 because the plaintiff insulted A.. A.., another employee of the employer. The file contains the written statements of the employees who witnessed the incident, and they confirmed those statements by testifying at the hearing. In light of this, it is established that the plaintiff employee attacked another employee of the defendant employer. The court erred in its assessment and granted the claims for severance pay and notice pay without considering that the employer's termination for this attack was based on just cause. This is incorrect and constitutes grounds for reversal. ..’
According to the decision of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2018/2785, Decision No. 2018/21795, dated November 28, 2018:
“...Article 25(II)(d) of the Labor Law (No. 4857) expressly states that an employee attacking another employee of the employer constitutes just cause. Conduct amounting to an attack includes making threats, using insulting words and physical assault (battery).
In the dispute at hand, the information and documents in the file show that the incident leading to the termination of the employment contract was the plaintiff insulting …, another employee of the defendant, by text message. It is established that this constitutes just cause for termination by the employer under Article 25(II)(d) of the Labor Law (No. 4857).
Since the words used by the plaintiff amount to an attack, the termination by the employer is based on just cause..”
According to the decision of the Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber, Docket No. 2013/175, Decision No. 2014/6440, dated April 18, 2014:
“Subparagraph (II)(d) of Article 25 of the Labor Law (No. 4857) provides that an employee attacking another employee of the employer gives the employer the right to terminate for just cause.
In the present case, the witness statements and the written defense and statements in the file establish that the plaintiff insulted S., another employee at the workplace, and went at S. aggressively. Accordingly, since the employer's termination of the employment contract was based on just cause, the claims for severance pay and notice pay should also have been dismissed. Rendering judgment as written was incorrect and required reversal.”
In summary, if an employee insults another employee of the employer, this will be treated as “an employee attacking another employee” under the statutory provision cited above and may be considered just cause. In that case, of course, an employee whose employment contract is terminated for just cause will not be entitled to the notice period and will not receive severance pay. Nor will the employee qualify for unemployment insurance, even if the other conditions are met. However, the specific facts and the nature of the act must be examined, and the attack must also be proven.