A decision that concerns millions of employees. He resigned but won compensation

The Supreme Court made another decision that concerns millions of employees.

The bank employee, who was dismissed from his post as assistant retail banking manager in a private bank branch, started to be employed in a lower position, as assistant retail customer relations manager.

The banker, who was then forced to work in other branches of the bank on a daily or weekly basis, resigned. The bank employee, who could not get any results from the severance pay negotiations with the bank management, knocked on the door of the Labor Court.

"DUE TO SEVERE AND UNFAIR WORKPLACE CONDITIONS..."

Claiming that he had to work in other branches of the bank and that he terminated his employment contract for just cause due to harsh and unfair workplace conditions, he requested that the severance pay be collected from the defendant.

The defendant bank lawyer also requested the rejection of the case, arguing that the case could not be filed as an indefinite receivables case, that the requested receivable was time-barred, that there was no decrease in the status of the plaintiff in his job, and that he was not entitled to severance pay since he resigned from the job.

Court; It decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff, who worked in the same bank for 16 years, terminated his employment contract for justified reasons and was entitled to severance pay. The decision of the defendant bank lawyer was appealed.

The Regional Court of Justice pointed out that where and when the work will be done is among the working conditions.

In the BAM decision; It was emphasized that if there are regulations in the employment contract stating that the employer can make changes to working conditions when necessary, the employer's extended management right is mentioned, and in this case, the employer gains the right to change the working conditions of the employee, provided that he does not abuse his management right and complies with the limits in the contract, but it was emphasized that the said right should be used objectively.

"IT IS AN ABUSE OF THE EMPLOYER'S MANAGEMENT RIGHT"

It was stated that the employee's implementation of the contract provision to ensure the termination of the employment contract was an abuse of the employer's management right, that the plaintiff was assigned to another branch approximately 52 kilometers away from the workplace where he was working, and that he was informed that the assignments would continue in the following stages.

The decision included the following:

"It is not foreseen that the employer could not prove the reason for the assignment, nor could he prove that he exercised his authority to appoint objectively, and that, for the plaintiff, this assignment was a fundamental change in the working conditions and that the employee could rightfully terminate the employment contract." However; It is obvious that changing the working conditions also means not applying the terms, and therefore, it is possible to terminate the employment contract for justified reason according to the provision of Article 24/II-(f) of the Labor Law No. 4857.

According to the statements made, it was decided to reject the defendant's appeal application on the grounds that the plaintiff terminated the employment contract for justified reasons and was entitled to severance pay, and that there was no error in the interest start date determined by the Court of First Instance.