January 14, 2025

Termination Of The Employment Contract By The Employee Due To Health Issues

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION

Employment contracts constitute the basis of the working relationship between the employee and the employer and impose mutual rights and obligations on the parties. The Turkish Labour Law No. 4857 (‘Labour Law’) contains regulations that allow the parties to terminate this relationship due to health problems. For the employee, the right to terminate the employment contract due to health issues is regulated under Article 24/I of the Labour Law, whereas for the employer, this right is regulated under Article 25/I. In both cases, the common condition for the termination of the employment contract is that health issues make the employment relationship unbearable or unsustainable. The acceptance of health issues as ‘’disease‘’ in the context of labour law is related to the fact that this situation leads to incapacity for work. Incapacity to work refers to the situation where the worker becomes unable to perform his/her job or cannot be expected to work as a result of the deterioration in his/her health condition. However, in cases of termination due to health problems, the employment contract does not terminate automatically; it is terminated through the explicit intention of the parties, provided that the necessary conditions are met. Notably, an employee who exercises their right to terminate under Article 24/I of the Labour Law due to health reasons is entitled to severance pay, as such termination is considered justified. This article will examine the employee’s right to justified termination due to health issues in light of the provisions of the Labour Act and the rulings of the Judicial Court decisions, while also addressing how this right is exercised in practice.

ⅠⅠ. EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE TERMINATION DUE TO HEALTH ISSUES AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

The provisions of Article 24 of the Labour Law titled ‘Employee’s Right to Terminate Immediately for Just Cause’ regulate the situations in which employment contracts of definite or indefinite duration can be terminated by the employee without waiting for the notice period. The provisions of the relevant article entitle the employee to terminate the employment contract immediately for just cause on various grounds such as health problems, situations contrary to the rules of morality and good faith, compelling reasons. The use of this right is considered in a wide range from hazardous working conditions affecting the physical or psychological health of the employee to the behaviour of the employer violating its obligations. However, in order for this right to arise, the employee must prove his/her claim within the framework of the characteristics of the concrete event, legal regulations and established judicial court decisions.

The right of the employee to terminate the employment contract for just cause due to health issues is regulated in the first paragraph of Article 24 of the Labour Law and the legislator has divided the termination due to health issues into two headings. Within the scope of these titles, the employee may terminate the employment contract immediately for just cause if (a) the performance of the work that is the subject of the employment contract is dangerous for the health or life of the employee due to a reason arising from the nature of the work, (b) the employer or another employee with whom the employee constantly meets and communicates closely and directly is infected with a contagious disease or a disease incompatible with the work of the employee.

Within the scope of an employment contract, the legislator has neither distinguished between temporary and permanent dangers regarding work that becomes hazardous to the employee’s health nor provided a clear definition of the concept of danger. An important point to consider here is that the employee’s current health condition may render continuing work hazardous to their health. Alternatively, even in the absence of any pre-existing illness, changes over time in the nature of the work or its conditions may pose a risk to the employee’s health. The fundamental issue is whether the danger exists from the perspective of the employee’s health and whether this danger stems from the nature of the work. The concept of “nature of the work” encompasses factors such as the physical manner in which the work is performed, the environment in which it is conducted, the materials used, and the individuals or objects interacted with during the work process. However, whether the danger arises from the nature of the work must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in determining whether the work has become hazardous for the employee, the concept of danger outlined in the law should be evaluated not only based on objective criteria but also by considering subjective factors such as the employee’s age, health status, physical constitution, and gender.

As it is known, if the employee terminates his/her employment contract for just cause, the employer becomes obligated to pay severance compensation. Although there is no regulation in the Labour Law on this subject, the right of termination due to health problems of the employee is subject to certain conditions in accordance with the established case law of the Court of Appeal. In this context, it is not possible for the employee to be entitled to severance pay as a result of the termination made by stating that he/she is only sick or claiming that the work he/she performs endangers his/her health. In order to exercise the right of termination, the Court of Appeal requires a committee report to be obtained from a full-fledged/equipped state hospital, forensic medicine institute or university hospitals, showing that the health problem of the employee creates an obstacle to the obligations to be fulfilled within the scope of the employment contract.  

‘…The elements stipulated in Article 24/1 of the Labour Law, the characteristics of the workplace, the working conditions of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s working conditions, his work, age and length of service should be taken into consideration as a whole and a committee report should be obtained from a full-fledged state hospital, Forensic Medicine or University Hospitals to determine whether the plaintiff has a disease that may prevent him from working…[Decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 11.02.2020 and numbered 2016/29903 E. 2020/2152 K.]

For the reasons stated, the elements stipulated in Article 24/1.-(a) of the Law No. 4857, the characteristics of the workplace, working conditions, the characteristics of the work performed should be taken into consideration as a whole, an investigation should be carried out in terms of the health reasons put forward by the plaintiff, and the Court should obtain a medical board report from a full-fledged occupational diseases or state hospital for the plaintiff and determine whether the work subject to the employment contract is dangerous to the health or life of the plaintiff for a reason arising from the nature of the work, and accordingly, the issue of whether the termination of the employee is justified should be evaluated. Concluding with incomplete examination and research was erroneous and required reversal…’ [Decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 08.07.2020 and numbered 2017/38584 E. 2020/9094 K.]

In the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal, it is evident that while the legislator grants the employee the right to terminate the employment contract for just cause, the burden of proof for demonstrating that the termination under Article 24/I-(a) of the Labour Act is based on just cause rests with the employee.If the employee fails to fulfill this burden of proof, their termination notice and actual cessation of work without complying with the notice period may not fall under any just cause specified in the Labour LAw. In such cases, the termination may be regarded as a resignation rather than a justified termination.

The concept of termination for just cause, which can be exercised by both the employee and the employer under the circumstances specified in the Labour Law, is significant in terms of both the termination process and its consequences. As a rule, if the employee unilaterally terminates the employment contract, the employee is not entitled to severance pay. However, the exception to this rule is the termination of the employment contract for just cause. In the event that the employee exercises this right, which is specified in Article 24 of the Labour Law and which is also referred to as the right of immediate termination, the employee is entitled to severance pay.

On the other hand, the issue of whether the employee is entitled to notice compensation under Article 24/I differs from severance pay. The notice period, which imposes an obligation on both the employee and the employer to observe notice periods, ceases to apply when the employment contract is terminated for just cause. Therefore, if an employee terminates the contract for health reasons under just cause, this termination will also qualify as an immediate termination. As a result, the employee is not required to comply with the notice period and will not be entitled to notice compensation.

ⅠⅠⅠ. CONCLUSION

The provisions of Article 24/I-a of the Labour Law governs the employee’s right to immediately terminate the employment contract due to just cause, such as health problems. However, to exercise this right, the employee must substantiate their claims with concrete and legal evidence. Although the Law does not specify the conditions under which the employee may exercise the right to terminate the employment contract for just cause due to health issues, the case law of the Court of Appeal stipulates that the employee must prove that his/her health problems prevent him/her from fulfilling his/her obligations under the employment contract with a full-fledged report documenting this situation. Otherwise, if the employee fails to prove that the termination is based on just cause, the termination may be considered a resignation rather than a justified dismissal.

The termination of the employment contract due to health issues by the employee must be based solely on the existence of working conditions that endanger the health of the employee and that this situation prevents the employee from fulfilling his/her work obligations. In this context, in order for the employee to be entitled to severance pay, it must be proved that the right of termination is based on a just cause. The employee’s exercise of the right of immediate termination for health reasons eliminates the responsibilities regarding the notice period and notice compensation and accelerates the termination process.

Best Regards,

Kılınç Hukuk & Danışmanlık

Authors

Mevra Baran Akkoyun

Mevra Baran Akkoyun

Senior Lawyer

Aksu Efesoy

Aksu Efesoy

Lawyer