Constitutional Court ruling affects millions of employees: Fired for criticizing salary raise

The Constitutional Court (AYM) has ruled that the freedom of expression of an employee who was fired without severance pay after sending an email to her managers expressing dissatisfaction with her salary raise was violated, following an individual application.

According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, Serap Aslan A., who was unhappy with the 5.3 percent annual raise given to her, sent an email to the managers and employees at her workplace stating, "Hello, I am returning the raise rate given to me to human resources in an envelope. Whoever determined this rate can share it among themselves, for your information."

Serap Aslan A., whose employment contract was terminated due to these statements, filed a lawsuit at the Çatalca 1st Civil Court of First Instance, stating that her contract was unfairly terminated and requesting that her severance and notice pay be paid.

REQUEST FOR SEVERANCE AND NOTICE PAY DENIED

The court ruled that the email constituted an implied insult that could damage the honor and dignity of the employer or the employer's representatives authorized to represent them and who determined the raise rate, and rejected the request for severance and notice pay on the grounds that the termination was justified.

After the local court's decision was upheld by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Serap Aslan A. made an individual application to the Constitutional Court.

Finding the applicant right, the High Court decided that the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution had been violated and ordered that 30 thousand liras in non-pecuniary damages be paid to the applicant.

A copy of the decision was sent to the Çatalca 1st Civil Court of First Instance for a retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation of freedom of expression.

'DISSATISFACTION MUST BE EXPRESSED IN AN APPROPRIATE TONE'

In the justification of the decision, it was stated that the applicant had notified the employer or the authorized representatives on behalf of the employer of her dissatisfaction with the salary raise rate via email, and it was noted that the local court had pointed out that this dissatisfaction should have been expressed in an appropriate tone.

The decision emphasized that freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and a fundamental condition for the progress of society and the development of every individual, and stated that the state must provide the highest level of protection for this freedom.

The decision, which stated that it is understood from the content of the email that the applicant was trying to bring her discomfort with finding the salary raise low to the attention of the relevant parties without making any concretization or accusation, included the following statements:

-It is not possible to say that the court, which rejected the lawsuit filed by the applicant on the grounds that her employment contract was unfairly terminated, was able to establish a fair balance between the applicant's freedom of expression and the honor and reputation rights of the employer or the employer's representatives.

-Therefore, it has been concluded that the court did not provide a relevant and sufficient justification for establishing a fair balance between the applicant's freedom of expression and the goal of ensuring the discipline, order, and industrial peace of the workplace.