The Constitutional Court ruled that the bank employee's rights were violated in the reinstatement case due to the notification date difference.

In the reinstatement case of a bank employee, the 5-day difference between the date the dismissal notice was issued and the date it was received became the subject of dispute. The Constitutional Court (AYM) ruled that the appellate court's decision, which rejected the case on the grounds that the 6-month seniority condition was not met, did not meet the employee's claims that could change the outcome of the case with 'sufficient justification' and ruled on a violation of rights.

According to the decision published in the Official Gazette, Gülşah Kale started working as an investment specialist in a bank on March 15, 2021. The bank reported that it terminated the employment contract on September 13, 2021, due to poor performance.

Kale, on the other hand, filed a lawsuit for reinstatement, stating that he had a medical report during this period and that the termination notice was notified to him on September 18, 2021. Claiming that he had met the six-month seniority condition on the date the notification was received, Kale also rejected the allegation of poor performance.

Istanbul 11th Labor Court ruled for Kale's reinstatement. The court stated that the employment contract was terminated 2 days before the end of the 6-month seniority period, but the employee was on leave at that time and the notification was received on September 18.

Evaluating that the employee should benefit from job security provisions, the court noted that his defense was not taken before the termination and that poor performance could not be proven by the bank.

The 31st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, which reviewed the file upon the bank's application, annulled the reinstatement decision.

Accepting Kale's seniority as 5 months and 28 days, the department flatly rejected the case on the grounds that the six-month period required to benefit from job security had not been completed. Kale then made an individual application to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court REVIEWED THE DECISION

The Constitutional Court pointed out that the first instance court accepted that the six-month seniority condition had been met, taking into account the medical report and the date on which the termination notice was received by the employee.

Stating that the court of appeal did not explain with a relevant and sufficient reason why it did not adopt this evaluation, the Constitutional Court emphasized that the allegations regarding the notification date and the effect of the medical report were not met.

The court unanimously ruled that the right to a reasoned decision within the scope of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 36 of the Constitution was violated.