property for personal needs, or stealing from the employer or clients are examples of this behavior.

The concept of employee theft is often interpreted differently when the value of the stolen items is very low, leading to questions about how it should be assessed, from its definition to its sanctions, both in our country and in comparative law. The point of hesitation here is whether the unauthorized taking of office supplies for personal reasons should be considered the same illegal act as taking more expensive workplace items, and whether it should face the same sanctions. The issue varies between criminal law and labour law contexts. However, in both scenarios, the answer to this question depends on how theft is defined, the rigidity or flexibility of this definition, and how the definition is applied in the workplace and by the employer.

Employee petty theft is often overlooked because the resulting damage does not impose a significant financial cost on the employer. However, even though it is not frequent, incidents of petty theft in the workplace can lead to the termination of employees’ contracts by employers. Disputes arise regarding whether these terminations are based on valid or justified reasons and whether the behavior legally constitutes grounds for termination.

In German sources, the concept is often examined under the term “Bagatellkündigung,” and in English sources under “petty theft.” It can be stated that since 1984, the German Federal Labor Court has generally deemed immediate terminations due to theft by employees of employer’s property appropriate, “without considering the value of the stolen item.” However, this acceptance has faced strong criticism in doctrine and public opinion, leading to detailed discussions. The most notable debate in German law regarding petty theft is whether, by analogy to rules accepted in criminal and administrative law, only thefts above a certain value can justify termination. It should be noted that there are strong proponents of both views in German doctrine.

In Turkish labor law, except for a few studies examining termination due to suspicion and Supreme Court decisions, it has been found that the issue has not been extensively studied. Based on our study and comparative law examinations, including the Supreme Court General Assembly decision known to the public as the “chocolate box decision,” we concluded that the perspective on petty thefts should not be evaluated through a literal interpretation of existing legal provisions but through a purposive interpretation.

In our opinion, when an employee is terminated for petty theft, the validity of the termination should not be assessed based on a material threshold valid in criminal or disciplinary law. The real justification for “terminations based on minimal damage” is “loss of trust”. The employee’s duty of loyalty arising from the employment contract includes considering the legitimate interests of the other party to the contract and the prohibition of harming the employer’s legitimate interests. Therefore, when an act that damages the employer’s property occurs, the