Arbitrary dismissal overturned by the judiciary! The employer must prove the valid reason for termination

The worker, who was employed as a control analyst, was dismissed during the pandemic process due to changing business conditions.

The aggrieved worker, who knocked on the door of the Labor Court, claimed that they were put out on the street by the employer as soon as the termination ban was lifted. They requested that the termination be declared invalid and that the plaintiff be reinstated, arguing that they had not received any documents, that the human resources manager had sent a screenshot of the notary notice via WhatsApp, and that the termination was not in accordance with the procedure.

The defendant company's lawyer, on the other hand, recalled that the plaintiff had been placed on unpaid leave due to the pandemic and that this situation had been notified to the plaintiff.

They argued that the employment was terminated due to 'changing business conditions and lack of need in work organization,' and that the plaintiff was dismissed because their labor was no longer needed when the termination ban ended. They claimed that the plaintiff's allegations did not reflect the truth and requested that the plaintiff's case be dismissed for all these reasons. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's lawyer appealed the decision. The Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Justice (BAM) signed a precedent-setting decision.

The decision emphasized that bosses cannot dismiss personnel based on abstract justifications at their own discretion.

The decision stated the following:

"Upon examination of the file, it is understood that the defendant employer, who bears the burden of proof, could not provide evidence for the issues they made the subject of their appeal petition with the documents submitted to the file. It is understood that they are bound by the reason for termination in the termination notice, and although 'changing business conditions and lack of need in work organization' were stated as the reason for termination in the notice, the defendant party did not submit any evidence that such a managerial decision was taken at the workplace or that a standard staff study was conducted. It is clear that they did not legally present their operational decision in this way, nor could they prove this decision in a manner that is free from arbitrariness, consistent, taking into account social selection criteria, and in accordance with the principle that termination is the last resort. It has been concluded that the first instance court's decision has sufficient legal justification to meet the appeal reasons based on objective evaluation, and it has been decided to reject the appeal application on its merits."

News Source: İHA