INTRODUCTION
The employee’s exit code is very important in many employee-employer disputes, and if there is a mismatch between the exit code and the way the employee’s employment contract is terminated, this situation could be interpreted in favour of the employee. The significance of the exit code in the termination of an employment contract has been examined in this study considering numerous judicial decisions.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXIT CODE IN CONTEXT OF CURRENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
When an insured employee leaves his or her job, the employer is obliged to notify the Social Security Institution (“SSI”) within 10 (ten) days. This document contains the exit code, which indicates the reason for the employment end. As a result, it is crucial that the exit codes are correctly reported to the SSI to determine the rights and responsibilities of the employee and employer in the termination of the employee’s employment contract under Labor Law No. 4857. Notifying the exit code other than the reason for the contract’s termination could be viewed as a misuse of the employer’s power in the contractual relationship in breach of the rules of good faith, and it can also result in effective results for the termination’s invalidity. As a result, as emphasized in numerous judicial decisions, it is important to carefully evaluate the exit code based on the specific case to protect both the employer’s rights and the employee’s job security.
The plaintiff employee claimed in the dispute, which is the subject of a judicial decision, that the employment contract was terminated verbally without a just or valid reason; the defendant, on the other hand, argued that the place of duty was changed within the scope of the right of management keep within the plaintiff’s rights, the plaintiff did not continue to work, and the employment contract was terminated for just cause due to absenteeism. Although the employer’s absentee minutes covering the dates between 01/04/2017–07/04/2017 are available within the scope of the file, the witness who was working at the time of the termination of the employment contract declared that the plaintiff was dismissed, and when the entire scope of the file is evaluated, the court decided to determine the termination’s invalidity and to reinstate the plaintiff since it was understood that it was terminated during the meeting called by the employer, that the absenteeism reports kept after the termination would not have a legal provision and result, and that the defendant employer could not definitively prove the claim of abandonment and absenteeism without hesitation in this case (Gaziantep Regional Courts of Justice, 14. CC., 2018/1895 E., 2019/488 K, D. 17.6.2019). In the specific case, the examination was not conducted solely on the basis of the exit code, but the employee’s job security was protected by taking into account all facts and evidence.
In another file with a reemployment demand, the defendant employer has been received the plaintiff’s 13 June 2018 dated letter on the same date, however the employer’s rescript of termination date has been given to SSI on June 28, 2018. The Court’s justification as follows; true resignation cannot be stated if the defendant does not process the employer’s letter and the employee continues to work at the workplace, it will be impossible to place a value on a petition for the resignation prepared under the pressure by the employer. In order for the employment contract to be terminated by mutual revocation, mutual and compatible declarations of will on all objective and subjective elements of the contract had been required and at the same time reasonable benefits must be provided to the employee. In the case of the plaintiff employee’s request “providing that my severance and notice indemnity is paid” in the letter dated 13/06/2018, it is understood that even if a mutual rescission (offer) was has been made, the plaintiff employee and the defendant employer have not agreed on the termination of the employment contract by providing reasonable benefits to the employee, other than severance pay, with mutual and compatible declarations of will on all objective and subjective elements of the employment contract. Defendant employer has been accepted the existence of the plaintiff employee’s right to severance and notice pay, a rescript of termination of employment was given to the SSI with code 04, on the other hand in case of termination of employment of the employee, code 03 should be given to the institution, in case of the existence of a cancellation agreement, code 22 (other reasons) should be given to the institution, for this reason, it was stated that the termination made by the defendant employer was invalid and the employee had to be reinstated (Sakarya Regional Courts of Justice, 10. CC., E. 2019/1846 K. 2020/857 T. 23.9.2020).
In a decision by the Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber, in the case of labour claims filed by the employee’s legal heirs after his death with a demand for severance pay, employer has been notified two termination date declarations for the deceased. It is seen that in the first declaration dated 27.05.2015 the exit code is 10 (death), and the termination date was 23.06.2015 and the second notification , include the exit code is 29 (contrary to moral and goodwill rules) has been given on August 1, 2015 and the termination date was 23.05.2015, It has been determined that the report was kept on 10.07.2015, stating that the deceased had a special relationship with another employee at work and that this situation caused workplace unrest. The employee died on July 23, 2015, according to the decedent’s death certificate and the certificate of inheritance, and in light of all of these records, it has been decided that the request for severance pay should be accepted despite the fact that, an investigation is being conducted against the decedent due to the special relationship he had at work, the testator died before the said investigation was completed, and the contract was ended with this death. (Court Of Cassation – 22. CC., E. 2017/45845 K. 2020/8447 T. 1.7.2020).
According to a decision of the Court of Cassation’s 9th Civil Chamber, the employer terminated the employment contract unfairly and that severance and notice pay was paid, but the exit code was reported to the SSI as code “29,” which indicates the employer’s rightful termination, rather than code “04” which indicates the employer’s unfair termination. Furthermore, the reason of a notice of absence is issued for the day the employment contract is terminated and the employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits based on these records, this case sued to be corrected that plaintiff’s the exit code and the code for the reason for the absent day are, first and foremost, all documents related to the employee’s request for SSI unemployment benefits obtained from SSI to filed, then it has been decided with include a provision stating which party terminated the employment contract and the proper situation, as well as displaying the correct exit code (Court Of Cassation – 9. CC., E. 2017/15444 K. 2020/1323 T. 4.2.2020).
CONCLUSION
The conclusion and termination of the employment contract between the employee and the employer in accordance with the applicable laws is critical for public order as well as the determination of the employee and employer’s rights. As a result, it is critical to carry out the processes of terminating workers’ employment contracts correctly, to notify the SSI of the exit codes in accordance with the concrete situation, in determining the rights of workers and employers, and in resolving any disputes that may arise.
Nil Merve ÇELİKBAŞ ŞEKER, LL.M.
*Legal Warning*
This post is for the purpose of exchanging information and experiences, and it does not provide a legal guarantee regarding the accuracy or timeliness of the material contained in the articles. Celikbaş Law Office assumes no responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of the use of any information or other content contained in this article, whether direct or indirect.
According to the relevant regulations of the Union of Bar Associations of the Republic of Turkey, the content given on this site is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an advertisement, offer, legal advice, or consulting. The transmission of this information does not constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Because this information may not represent the most recent legal developments, readers should contact a lawyer about the current situation.