Ekonomi ve Hukuk Dergisi

Makalenin Dili

: TR

  • Ali Güzel
İş Sözleşmesinin “Eylemli” Feshi ve Uygulama Sorunları

ÖZ

İş sözleşmesinin feshi, tarafları açısından, çok önemli hukuki sonuçlar doğurmasına karşın, kavramsal düzeyde anlam belirsizliği nedeniyle uygulamada karmaşık ve özellikle işçi açısından önemli hak kayıplarına da yol açabilmektedir. Klasik sözleşme kuramına göre; fesih, sözleşmeyi sona erdiren tek yanlı bir irade beyanıdır. Aynı esas, iş sözleşmesi açısından da geçerlidir. Gerçekten, Borçlar Kanununda (m.431) olduğu gibi, İş Kanununa göre de belirsiz süreli iş sözleşmelerinde işçi veya işverenin bildirim süresi tanıyarak tek yanlı iradesiyle sözleşmeyi feshetmesi (İşK. m.17) olanaklı olduğu gibi, belirsiz ya da belirli süreli iş sözleşmelerinde haklı bir nedenin varlığı halinde de bildirim süresi tanımaksızın işçi (İşK.m.24) veya işveren (İşK. m.25) tarafından fesih gerçekleştirilebilecektir. Fesih bildirimi, yenilik doğuran bir hak olup, var olan hukuki ilişkiyi bozduğu, yani iş sözleşmesini sona erdirdiği için bozucu yenilik doğuran haklar arasında yer alır. Bu nedenle, fesih bildiriminin belirli ve açık biçimde yapılması, tarafların hak ve yükümlülükleri açısından yaşamsal bir öneme sahip bulunmaktadır. Bu temel kurala karşın, uygulamada fesih bildirimi, çoğu kez, açık bir biçimde yapılmaz. Yargıtayın yerleşik içtihadına göre, olayların akışından taraflardan birinin söz veya davranışı ile sözleşmeye son verildiği saptanabiliyorsa, bu türdeki davranışların da fesih niteliğinde kabul edilmesi gerekir. İşte, “eylemli fesih” kavramı bu noktada karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Anılan bu fesih biçimi, işçinin söz ve davranışlarının bir sonucu ise, “işçinin istifası” ya da teknik hukuk açısından iş sözleşmesinin işçi tarafından feshi; işverenden kaynaklı ise, işverence gerçekleştirilmiş bir fesih söz konusu olacaktır. Ne var ki, belirtilen bu hususlar da, her somut olaya uygulanabilirliği söz konusu olabilecek kesin bir anlam içermemektedir. Eylemli fesih konusundaki karmaşık sorunlara ve uyuşmazlıklara da bu husus kaynaklık etmektedir. Yargıtay, değişik olasılıkları dikkate alarak, işçinin kimi söz ve davranışlarını, işçi fesih değil, işveren feshi olarak niteleyebilmektedir. Bu çözüm, isabetli ve yerleşik içtihada dönüşmüş olmasına karşın, uyuşmazlıkların azımsanmayacak bir bölümünde, çelişkili sonuçlara varıldığı, eylemli fesih niteliğindeki maddi olayların hukuki değerlendirmesinin isabetsiz yapıldığı da tespit edilebilmektedir. Bu incelemenin temel amacı da, bu kapsamdaki sorunlara açıklık kazandırmak ve çelişkili kararlara işaret ederek, çözüm önerileri oluşturmaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler : İrade, Fesih, Süreli Fesih, Süresiz Fesih, Eylemli Fesih, Baskı Feshi, Geçerli Neden, Haklı Neden
Termination of an Employment Contract by Action and Problems in Practice

ABSTRACT

Although the termination of the employment contract has very important legal consequences for the parties, it can also cause complex problems in practice and especially important loss of employee’s rights due to the ambiguity at the conceptual level. According to the classical contract theory, termination is a unilateral declaration of will that terminates the contract. The same principle applies to the employment contract. Indeed, it is possible for the employee or employer to terminate the indefinite-term employment contract unilaterally by allowing a notification period, and also in the presence of a just cause, regardless of whether there is an indefinite or fixed-term employment contract, the employee or employer may terminate the contract without giving a notification period. Notice of termination is a formative right, as it terminates the employment contract. For this reason, specific and clear notice of termination is of vital importance in terms of the rights and obligations of the parties. Despite this basic principle, a notice of termination in practice is often not clear. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, if it can be determined from the flow of events that the contract was terminated by the word or behaviour of one of the parties, such behaviour should also be considered as termination. It is at this point that the concept of “termination by action” comes into play. If this form of termination is a result of the words and behaviours of the employee, it’s called “employee’s resignation” or termination of the employment contract by the employee. On the other hand, if it is caused by the employer, there will be a termination of the employment contract by the employer. The Court of Cassation, taking into account the different possibilities, may characterize some words and behaviours of the employee as the termination of the employer, not the termination of the employee. Although this solution has turned into a correct and settled jurisprudence, it can be determined that in a substantial part of the disputes, contradictory results have been reached and the legal assessment of the concrete events in the form of annulment by action is inaccurate. The main purpose of this study is to clarify the problems in this context and to create solutions by pointing out contradictory judicial decisions.

Extended Summary

Terminating the employment contract is vital, especially for the employee. Except for the termination by mutual agreement of the parties and the termination of the fixed-term employment contract; the employment contract basically and commonly is terminated upon notice. In our law, there are two types of termination upon notice. The first one is specific only to indefinite-term employment contracts, and the employee or employer terminates the contract, provided that the notice periods stipulated in the law are complied with. The second one is the termination of a fixed or indefinite-term employment contract with a just cause, without the need for a notice period. Article 24 of the Turkish Labour Law regulates the termination of the contract by the employee, and Article 25 regulates the termination of the employer with just cause.

In particular, the termination of an indefinite-term employment contract is based on the principles of freedom and reciprocity that dominate the contract law. These principles, which reflect an individualist and liberal understanding of law have been largely abandoned because they do not comply with the aim of protecting the employee in the contemporary labour law, and the termination of the employer’s indefinite-term employment contract in order to provide job security for the employer has been made dependent on the existence of a valid ground.

On the other hand, the employee’s termination of an indefinite-term employment contract has been accepted as a reflection of free will. Undoubtedly, it can be accepted as a normal way for the employee to terminate the employment contract voluntarily and take the aforementioned socio-economic risks for personal or family reasons. However, it is not always possible to accept it as a normal way for the employee, who is in a relationship of subordination and whose only livelihood is wage income, to terminate the employment contract voluntarily, knowing that they will be deprived of these rights. On the contrary, there may be very exceptional cases where the employee’s will to terminate is based on free will. The employee generally has to terminate the contract not of their own free will, but with the effect of the employer’s unlawful or contractual behaviour. If the termination is based on free will, it means a choice, and if it is the result of reasons originating from the employer, it means a necessity. In fact, the employee is obliged to terminate the contract by only determining these reasons originating from the employer, and in a sense, the employer forces the employee to terminate. For this reason, the legal consequences of a termination by the employer are attached to this termination of the employee. In a sense, this phenomenon should be evaluated as a sanction of the employer’s unlawful acts. In French Law, by the Court of Cassation, a distinction is made between the grounds originating from the employer (l’imputabilité à l’employeur) and the declaration of the employee’s will to terminate (la prise d’acte par le salarié), its legal nature and its consequences have been made clear. It can be said that a similar solution has been adopted in terms of our law, especially by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Indeed, our Court of Cassation characterizes the termination of the employment contract by the employee as an “employer termination” due to reasons originating from the employer and applies the legal consequences regarding the termination of the employer.

The main difficulty in the subject that we focus on, is to determine the legal nature of the concrete cases attributed by the employee. In this regard, the basic principle is that the concrete cases on which the employee is based must be of such weight as to cause invalid or unjust termination. At this point, the nature of the concrete events will be important, not the termination decision of the employee. The legal nature of concrete events will be defined by the judge. It should be noted that the distinction between the actual resignation of the employee and the termination with reference to the employer depends on the purpose of the termination. At this point, the only issue that is important and should be taken into account is whether there was any employer’s misconduct before the termination of the employee. If the employee can prove that the employer terminated the contract or resigned due to their misconduct, the termination in question must be attributed to the employer.

Keywords : Will, Termination of an employment contract, Termination Upon Notice, Termination with Just Cause, Termination by Action, Termination Under Third Party Pressure, Valid Grounds, Just cause

Kaynak Göster

APA
GÜZEL, A., & . ( 2022). İş Sözleşmesinin “Eylemli” Feshi ve Uygulama Sorunları. Çalışma ve Toplum, 5(75), 2485-2507. https://doi.org/10.54752/ct.1191411