Article 25 of the Labor Law regulates the right of immediate termination of the employer right. Accordingly, whether or not the term is specified, the employer may terminate the employment contract before the expiration of the term or without waiting for the notification period in cases where the employee does not comply with the rules of morality and good faith, such as the sexual harassment of the worker. In this case, the employee can be dismissed without severance pay. The following are examples of behavior that violates the rules of morality and good faith; misleading the employer, words and behaviors that will touch the honor and honor, sexual harassment, bullying and drunkenness, behaviors that do not comply with loyalty and fidelity, committing a crime in the workplace, absenteeism, non-fulfillment of duty, occupational safety, damage to the employer’s property etc.

Therefore, as seen in the following example of Supreme Court of Appeals, the worker’s contract was terminated immediately by the employer because of observing the workers’ locker room and sexually harassing the women workers. As a result of immediate termination by the employer, the employee shall not be entitled to severance pay and notice.

However, it is accepted that there is no need to take the defense of the worker so that the employer can use his right to terminate immediately due to the worker’s behavior which does not comply with the rules of morality and good faith. In this case, the employer terminates the employment contract with the declaration of unilateral will.

The employer’s authority to terminate the recognized contract for the employer based on the circumstances which do not comply with the rules of morality and good faith, shall not be used one year after 6 days from the day when the other party learns that one of the parties is involved in such acts and in any case after the actual execution of the action.

However, if the employer has suffered any loss due to the acts of termination of the employee, it is foreseen that he may demand a compensation according to the general provisions of the Labor Code in accordance with article 26/2 of the Labor Law.

JUDGMENT RESOLUTION:

T. C. 7. Law Department of the Court of Appeals No: 2014/12153 Decision No: 2014/20578 Date of Decision: 10.11.2014
As a result of the lawsuit made between the parties, the Supreme Court of Appeals to be examined by the request of the defendant, the appeal was understood to be in the duration of the request. The file was examined, it was negotiated:

Acting plaintiff; his client, the defendant in the workplace between May 2002 and 29.06.2012, female employees in the dressing room on 28.06.2012 in the evening hours accused of dressing in the shape of the glass, the client’s dismissal from his dismissal without compensation to declare that his client, severance and notice claims from the defendant collection demanded.
The Deputy Respondent; the defendant, the client work in the workplace since 01.05.2002, the employment contract “uncomfortable and offensive and offensive behavior of female employees working in the workplace” due to the right to work in accordance with Article 25 / II (c) of the law has been terminated, defending the rejection of the case.

Court; Abc window at the people they said they saw behind the smoky glass behind the smoky glass and seen from the side profile, business manager of glued Word in room 2002 rolled on, and the decision that ABC by identifying the scanned passport and employers by women’s and men’s locker, due to the toilet and sink suitable separation It was decided to accept the case on the grounds that Abc’s dismissal was unfair.

There is a dispute between the parties on whether the termination of the employment contract is justified.

In the present case, the claimant claimed that the employment contract was terminated without justified reason, while the defendant employer argued that the employment contract was terminated for just cause.

In the instant case, the applicant claimed that the female locker room, the workers of the defendant employer, had been watched by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that this was not the case. However, they complained that the complainant, who had complained to the employer, had also filed a complaint against the employer. There is no animosity that requires the plaintiff to slander between the above-mentioned persons and the plaintiff. This action is considered to be a sexual harassment by another employee of the employer and the employment contract was terminated by the employer for justified reasons. It was wrong to decide on the rejection of severance and notice compensation requests.

In that case, the appeal objections aimed at these aspects of the defendant representative should be accepted and the decision should be broken.

CONCLUSION: The decision of the appeal of the above-mentioned reasons, the advance of the appeal fee to the defendant on request, the decision of the defendant, 10.11.2014 was decided unanimously.
2988/5000
JUDGMENT RESOLUTION:

T. C. 7. Law Department of the Appeals No: 2014/12153 Date of Decision: 10.11.2014
As a result of the lawsuit made between the parties, the Supreme Court of Appeals to be Examined by the request of the defendant, the appeal was understood to be in the duration of the request. The file was examined, it was negotiated:

Acting plaintiff; feeling client, the defendant in the workplace between May 2002 and 29.06.2012, female employees in the dressing room on 28.06.2012 in the evening hours Accused of dressing in the shape of the glass, the client’s dismissal from his dismissal without compensation to declare that his client, severance and notice demands from.
The Deputy Respondent; the defendant, the client work in the workplace since 01/05/2002, the employment contract “uncomfortable and offensive and offensive behavior of female employees working in the workplace” due to the right to work in accordan think with Article 25 / II (c) of the defenseless

Court; , The lady and the woman behind the misty glass behind the misty glass. It wasn’t easy to find.

There is a dispute between the parties.

In the present case, the claimant CLAIMED that the employment contract was terminated without justified reason, while the defendant employer argued that the employment contract was terminated for just cause.

In the instant case, the employee claimed that the female locker, the workers, the defendant, had been watched by the plaintiff. The plaintiff However, they complained that the complainant had