Bad news for the worker working undercover

An employee who worked for another employer without permission from the employer was dismissed without compensation. The Supreme Court found the employer right.

According to the case file, the worker, who had been working for a company for five years, was dismissed without compensation on the grounds that he made a reservation at a hotel for the official of his former workplace, continued to use the e-mail address with the "api" extension that he received during the period of his former employer, held meetings with the companies where his former employer worked with this e-mail address, organized meetings with his boss for another company even though it was a rival company, and took another company official to in-town and out-of-town meetings with the vehicle belonging to the company he worked for during his leave.

LABOR COURT: “IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT HE PROVIDED A BENEFIT”

The worker filed a lawsuit demanding notice and severance pay, claiming that he was unfairly dismissed. The labor court decided that the employer's claim was at a level that would shake the relationship of trust between the employee and the employer, but that the employee should be paid notice and severance pay on the grounds that it could not be proven that the employee had benefited from this action. The regional court of justice, which discussed the employer's appeal application, found the decision of the labor court correct.

COURT OF COURT: “THE EMPLOYER IS RIGHT EVEN IF THE WORKER DOES NOT PROVIDE BENEFITS”

Upon the employer's appeal, the file was brought to the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals. In its decision (dated 24 June 2026, Docket No: 2026 / 3315, Decision No: 2026 / 6247), it was emphasized that the situations that do not comply with the rules of morality and good faith are listed in Article 25/II of the Labor Law No. 4857, and that the employer has the possibility of justified termination of the employment contract in the presence of similar situations. According to the said article, it was noted that employee behaviors that do not comply with honesty and loyalty, such as abusing the employer's trust, stealing, and revealing the employer's professional secrets, also give the employer the opportunity for justified termination.

According to the said article of the law, it was stated in the decision that the employee's words and behaviors that were contrary to the duty of loyalty gave the employer the opportunity for justified termination. It was stated that it was fixed with its scope.

The decision also pointed out that there was a provision in the employment contract signed with the employee that stated, "Personnel cannot work in any other organization or company, cannot be a partner, or take part in any capacity without the written permission of the employer. The employer is free to grant or not grant permission."