Introduction
Just cause termination by the employer under Turkish labor law is one of the most consequential dismissal mechanisms in the entire employment system. Under Article 25 of Labor Law No. 4857, an employer may terminate an employment contract immediately, before the end of the term or without waiting for the ordinary notice periods, when one of the statutory grounds exists. Those grounds are grouped under health reasons, violations of morality and good faith and similar acts, compelling reasons, and detention or arrest causing prolonged absence. Because this route removes the ordinary notice structure and, in some cases, also defeats severance pay, it is heavily scrutinized in practice.
This issue matters for both sides of the employment relationship. For employers, Article 25 is not simply a convenient shortcut to dismiss a worker without paying compensation. It is a narrowly structured statutory power that must fit the facts, the timing rules, and the procedural framework of the Labor Law. For employees, the label “just cause dismissal” is not final by itself. If the employer cannot show that the facts truly fall within Article 25, the dismissal may still be attacked through the job-security regime, and monetary claims may still arise.
A second reason the topic is important is that Turkish law distinguishes sharply between ordinary termination and just cause termination. An ordinary employer dismissal usually operates through the notice rules of Article 17 and, where the worker falls within the job-security regime, through Articles 18 to 21. Article 25, by contrast, is reserved for cases serious enough to justify immediate termination. That distinction changes the legal result on notice pay, severance pay, the defense-taking requirement, and reinstatement risk.
The Legal Basis of Employer Just Cause Termination
The direct legal source is Article 25 of Labor Law No. 4857. The statute states that, whether the contract is fixed-term or indefinite-term, the employer may terminate before the end of the term or without waiting for the notice period in the listed situations. In Turkish employment law, this is the formal basis of “immediate termination by the employer.”
But Article 25 does not operate alone. Its consequences must be read together with Article 17 on notice, Article 19 on written termination notice and the defense rule, Article 20 on challenging dismissals and reinstatement procedure, Article 26 on time limits for morality-and-good-faith grounds, and the preserved severance regime under Article 14 of former Law No. 1475, which remains in force through Article 120 of Law No. 4857. This is why a correct legal analysis of Article 25 requires more than reading a single article in isolation.
The Ministry of Labour’s official FAQ confirms the practical consequences of this framework. It states that where the employer terminates within the scope of Article 25, the employee does not receive notice compensation. It also states that where the employer relies specifically on Article 25/II—the misconduct category covering violations of morality and good faith and similar acts—the employee does not acquire a right to severance pay. That distinction between Article 25/II and the other subcategories is one of the most important rules in dismissal practice.
Why Valid Reason and Just Cause Are Not the Same
A common employer mistake in Turkey is confusing valid reason with just cause. Article 18 requires a valid reason when an employer dismisses an eligible worker under an indefinite-term contract in a workplace employing at least 30 workers where the employee has at least six months’ seniority. Valid reasons relate to the employee’s competence, conduct, or the operational needs of the business. Article 25 is different. It is not for ordinary underperformance or manageable workplace tension. It is for situations the law treats as serious enough to justify immediate dismissal.
This distinction has major consequences. If the employer calls a dismissal “just cause” but the facts actually reflect only weak performance, an unproven operational problem, or an ordinary conduct issue that does not fit Article 25, the dismissal may lose its immediate-termination character. The employee may then challenge the dismissal and, if the worker falls within the job-security regime, apply to mediation within one month and proceed with a reinstatement claim if necessary. Turkish law therefore reviews the substance of the employer’s reason, not only the wording used in the termination letter.
The statute itself makes this point clear. The closing part of Article 25 says that the worker may resort to the judicial route under Articles 18, 20, and 21 if the termination is alleged not to comply with the conditions described in the preceding subparagraphs. So Article 25 is powerful, but it is not immune from challenge.
Health Reasons Under Article 25/I
The first category is health reasons. Under Article 25/I(a), the employer may terminate immediately if the worker’s illness or disability arises from the worker’s own intentional conduct, disorderly lifestyle, or alcohol addiction, and the resulting absence lasts more than three consecutive working days or more than five working days in one month. Under Article 25/I(b), the employer may terminate if a health board determines that the worker has an incurable illness and that working at the workplace is medically inappropriate. The Ministry’s FAQ summarizes these same health-based grounds.
Article 25/I also contains a separate and very important rule for illness, accident, birth, and pregnancy situations that do not arise from the worker’s own fault as described in subparagraph (a). In those cases, the employer’s immediate termination right arises only after the relevant absence exceeds the worker’s Article 17 notice period by six additional weeks. In pregnancy and birth cases, this period begins only after the protected period under Article 74 ends. This means the law does not allow the employer to treat every medical or maternity-related absence as immediate just cause from the first day.
From the severance perspective, this distinction is critical. The Ministry’s FAQ states that health-based dismissal under this framework does not automatically deprive the worker of severance pay. The preserved severance regime excludes dismissals under the misconduct ground corresponding to Article 25/II, not all dismissals under Article 25. So a worker dismissed under Article 25/I may lose notice pay because the termination is immediate, but may still retain severance entitlement if the legal conditions for severance are otherwise present.
Morality and Good Faith Violations Under Article 25/II
The most important and most heavily litigated category is Article 25/II, which covers violations of morality and good faith and similar acts. The law lists numerous specific grounds. These include the worker misleading the employer at the time of hiring about essential qualifications or conditions, insulting the employer or the employer’s family in a way that affects honor and dignity, making false degrading accusations against the employer, sexually harassing another worker, assaulting the employer, the employer’s family, or another worker, coming to work drunk or under the influence of drugs, using such substances at work, breaching trust, stealing, disclosing trade secrets, committing a workplace crime punishable by more than seven days’ imprisonment without suspension, unauthorized absenteeism in the statutory patterns, persistently refusing assigned duties despite reminder, and endangering workplace safety or causing serious damage.
This category matters more than any other because it is the one that generally removes both notice compensation and severance pay. The Ministry’s FAQ says expressly that if the employer terminates under Article 25/II, the employee does not acquire severance entitlement. The same FAQ also describes Article 25/II as the framework for dismissal without notice and without severance. This is why Article 25/II is often referred to in practice as the “tazminatsız fesih” category, even though that shorthand should be used carefully and only when the statutory conditions truly exist.
Precisely because Article 25/II is so severe, Turkish law and official Ministry guidance demand concrete proof. For example, the Ministry’s FAQ states that for the ground of persistent refusal to perform assigned duties under subparagraph (h), the worker’s refusal should be documented by at least two or more records showing that the worker was reminded or warned. Likewise, for the ground involving serious damage caused by the worker under subparagraph (ı), the Ministry states that the amount of damage should be supported by an expert or appraisal report; otherwise the termination may not be seen as based on concrete facts and may fail as a just-cause dismissal.
Absenteeism deserves separate mention because it is frequently misapplied. Article 25/II(g) allows immediate dismissal where the worker is absent without permission or justified reason for two consecutive working days, or for two working days in a month after a holiday, or for three working days in a month. The Ministry’s FAQ clarifies that the “month” here is not understood as a calendar month; it is calculated from the first day of absenteeism. That clarification can be outcome-determinative in practice.
Compelling Reasons Under Article 25/III
The third category is compelling reasons. Article 25/III states that the employer may terminate immediately if a compelling reason prevents the worker from working at the workplace for more than one week. This is a narrower ground than Article 25/II and is usually linked to extraordinary external events rather than misconduct.
The legal consequences here are more nuanced than in Article 25/II cases. The dismissal is still immediate, so notice compensation does not arise. But because the preserved severance regime excludes only the misconduct category corresponding to Article 25/II, a dismissal under Article 25/III does not automatically eliminate severance pay in the same way. That is a point employers often miss when they incorrectly treat all Article 25 dismissals as identical.
Detention or Arrest Under Article 25/IV
The fourth category is detention or arrest. Article 25/IV allows the employer to terminate immediately if the worker is taken into custody or detained and the resulting absence exceeds the notice period applicable under Article 17. The Ministry’s FAQ repeats this rule and explains that once the worker’s absence exceeds the relevant notice period, the employer may dismiss immediately.
Again, the existence of immediate dismissal does not automatically answer the severance question in the same way as Article 25/II. The key distinction in the Turkish system is not merely “immediate versus ordinary,” but whether the ground is one of misconduct under Article 25/II or another Article 25 subcategory.
The Timing Rule in Article 26
One of the most important restrictions on the employer’s power appears in Article 26. For morality-and-good-faith grounds under Articles 24 and 25, the termination right must be exercised within six working days from the date the other party learns of the conduct, and in any event within one year from the date of the act. The one-year limit does not apply if the worker obtained material benefit from the event. Both the statute and the Ministry’s FAQ repeat this timing structure.
This timing rule has major practical consequences. An employer may have a real misconduct ground, but still lose the right to rely on Article 25/II if the employer waits too long after learning of it. Turkish law does not allow the employer to tolerate or overlook the act for an extended period and then later present it as an urgent just-cause dismissal. For employers, prompt legal assessment is therefore essential. For employees, Article 26 can be a key defense where the employer tries to revive stale incidents to justify immediate dismissal.
It is also important to state the limit of Article 26 correctly. The six-working-day and one-year rule applies specifically to the morality-and-good-faith grounds under Article 25/II, not automatically to every Article 25 category. Health reasons, compelling reasons, and detention-related grounds follow their own statutory logic.
Written Notice, Clear Reason, and the Defense Rule
Procedure remains important even in just-cause cases. Article 19 states that the employer must make the termination notice in writing and must state the reason clearly and definitely. The same article further states that an indefinite-term contract cannot be terminated for reasons related to the worker’s conduct or performance without first obtaining the worker’s defense. But Article 19 expressly reserves the employer’s right to dismiss under Article 25/II, meaning the ordinary defense-taking rule does not block a properly grounded misconduct dismissal under that subparagraph.
This exception is often misunderstood. It does not mean an employer can dismiss under Article 25/II casually or orally. It means that where the facts truly satisfy Article 25/II, the employer is not bound by the general rule that conduct- or performance-based termination requires prior defense. The employer still has to identify the legal basis clearly, communicate the dismissal properly, and later prove that the conduct really fell within Article 25/II.
In practice, poorly drafted dismissal letters create serious risk. A vague formula such as “loss of confidence” or “incompatibility with workplace order” may sound serious, but if the employer does not connect it to the factual content of Article 25, the dismissal may become difficult to defend. Turkish law expects the employer to do more than invoke a harsh label.
Notice Pay and Severance Pay: The Crucial Distinction
Notice pay and severance pay are not the same thing under Article 25. The Ministry’s FAQ says that when the employer terminates under Article 25, the worker does not receive notice compensation. That is the basic effect of immediate termination: the ordinary Article 17 notice system is bypassed.
Severance is different. The worker generally loses severance only when the dismissal falls within Article 25/II. The Ministry’s FAQ says this explicitly, and the preserved severance regime confirms it. By contrast, health-based dismissals under Article 25/I may still leave severance intact, and the Ministry specifically notes that in the medical-absence situation described in Article 25/I(b), severance is still payable. This is one of the most important legal distinctions in Turkish dismissal law.
For employers, this means that using the phrase “just cause dismissal” is not enough to determine compensation consequences. The exact subparagraph matters. For employees, it means that an immediate dismissal should never automatically be treated as a severance-free dismissal without first checking whether the employer really relied on Article 25/II or on another Article 25 ground.
Challenging the Dismissal and Reinstatement Risk
If the employee believes the employer’s stated Article 25 ground does not actually fit the law, Turkish law allows challenge. Article 25 itself refers the worker to Articles 18, 20, and 21. Article 20 states that a worker whose employment contract has been terminated must apply to mediation within one month from service of the dismissal notice if the worker claims that no reason was given or that the stated reason was not valid. If mediation fails, the worker may file suit within two weeks from the date of the final mediation record. Article 20 also places the burden of proving that the dismissal was based on a valid reason on the employer.
This is especially important for employers who misuse Article 25 to avoid notice and severance. A dismissal framed as “just cause” may still produce reinstatement risk if the worker is within the job-security regime and the employer cannot prove the statutory basis. The law is therefore designed to discourage opportunistic use of Article 25.
Mandatory Mediation for Monetary Claims
Where the post-dismissal dispute concerns severance, unpaid wages, discrimination compensation, or other employment-related receivables and compensation, Article 3 of Labor Courts Law No. 7036 requires prior application to a mediator. The statute says that lawsuits based on employee or employer receivables and compensation arising from law or individual or collective employment contracts, as well as reinstatement claims, are subject to mandatory mediation. A case filed without mediation is dismissed procedurally.
This means that Article 25 disputes often split into two tracks. One track is the reinstatement challenge with the one-month and two-week deadlines under Article 20. The other is the monetary-claims track, such as severance or unpaid wage claims, which must also pass through mediation under Law No. 7036. Turkish labor procedure therefore requires employers and employees to think carefully about both substance and route.
Limitation Periods
The current limitation period for major termination-related monetary claims is five years under Additional Article 3 of Labor Law No. 4857. That provision expressly includes severance pay, compensation arising from dismissal without notice, bad-faith compensation, equal-treatment compensation, and annual leave pay in the five-year regime. This matters in Article 25 disputes because even where the worker loses reinstatement due to missed deadlines, certain monetary claims may still remain subject to the five-year limitation rule.
Conclusion
Just cause termination by the employer under Turkish labor law is a severe and highly technical dismissal mechanism. Article 25 allows immediate termination for health reasons, violations of morality and good faith, compelling reasons, and detention-related absence. But these subcategories are not legally interchangeable. The biggest practical distinction is that Article 25/II usually removes both notice pay and severance pay, while other Article 25 grounds may still leave severance intact even though the dismissal is immediate. The six-working-day and one-year rule in Article 26 further limits the employer’s ability to rely on morality-and-good-faith grounds if action is delayed.
For employers, the safest approach is to treat Article 25 as an exceptional legal tool rather than a routine HR shortcut. Immediate dismissal should be tied to a clearly identified statutory ground, supported with concrete evidence, used within the proper time limits, and communicated in a clear written notice. For employees, the key point is that a dismissal labeled “just cause” is not automatically unchallengeable. If the facts do not match the statute, severance may still be due in some Article 25 categories, and reinstatement or other monetary remedies may still be available through the proper mediation and court process. In Turkish labor law, the real issue is never the label alone. It is whether the employer can prove the law actually fits the facts
Yanıt yok