- Purpose and Legal Basis of Reinstatement Actions
The principle of job security, which constitutes the legal basis of reinstatement actions, is one of the fundamental pillars of modern labor law. Considering the employee’s economic dependence and the employer’s managerial authority, subjecting the unilateral termination of employment relationships to certain rules is of great importance for the protection of employees.
In this context, Article 18 of the Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 provides that “In workplaces employing thirty or more employees, an employer who terminates an indefinite-term employment contract of an employee with at least six months of seniority must rely on a valid reason arising from the employee’s competence or behavior, or from the requirements of the enterprise, workplace, or job.” Reinstatement actions regulated under this provision lie at the very center of the job security system.
In practice, however, not every type of termination gives rise to a reinstatement claim in the same manner. Particularly in cases where the workplace is completely closed or business activities are ceased, the legal feasibility of reinstatement becomes controversial. Reinstating an employee to a workplace where the employer has terminated its operations gives rise to both factual and legal difficulties. For this reason, workplace closure constitutes one of the most critical discussion points in reinstatement disputes and is addressed from different perspectives both in judicial precedents and mediation practices.
- Workplace Closure: A Valid Ground for Termination?
Pursuant to Article 18 of the Turkish Labor Law No. 4857, an employer must demonstrate a valid reason when terminating an employment contract. Such a reason may be based on the employee’s performance or conduct, or on requirements arising from the enterprise, workplace, or job. The closure of a workplace is generally accepted as a valid reason stemming from workplace requirements.
According to the precedents of the Court of Cassation, in cases where the workplace is closed, the employer’s obligation to reinstate the employee is deemed to be factually eliminated, as there is no longer an existing workplace to which the employee can be reinstated. However, the key issue to be examined is whether the workplace has genuinely been closed and whether such closure is based on objective or subjective reasons.
If the employer merely gives the appearance of closing the workplace in order to evade a reinstatement claim, such conduct may be deemed a violation of the principle of good faith by the court. If it is determined that the workplace has not been genuinely closed and that business activities continue under a different address or trade name, the court may rule that the termination is invalid and order reinstatement. Therefore, the employer is required to substantiate the closure of the workplace with concrete and official evidence. Accordingly, the employer’s defense gains value only through transparency and evidentiary strength; otherwise, the likelihood of reinstatement claims being upheld by the courts increases.
In addition, in certain cases, the closure of the workplace or the permanent cessation of its activities may occur not at the time of termination, but while the reinstatement lawsuit is still pending. In such circumstances, the court evaluates the case based on the conditions existing at the time the lawsuit was filed, taking into account the legal interest of the parties. In other words, whether the workplace was operational at the time of termination and whether the legal interest of the parties has been completely eliminated are decisive factors when rendering a judgment. However, if the workplace is completely closed or its activities are permanently ceased during the course of the proceedings, the factual enforceability of a reinstatement decision disappears. In such cases, even if the court renders a reinstatement decision, actual reinstatement becomes impossible, and the legal consequences of the decision are generally limited to compensation and other labor-related receivables. In line with the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, where the workplace is closed or permanently ceases operations during the litigation process, the employee cannot be reinstated; however, reinstatement compensation and other labor entitlements must still be paid.
- Assessment of Workplace Closure in the Mediation Process
With the enactment of the Turkish Labor Courts Law No. 7036, mediation has become a mandatory precondition for reinstatement claims. Nevertheless, in cases where the workplace has been completely closed or its activities have ceased, mediation discussions tend to focus primarily on reaching a monetary settlement regarding all receivables arising from the termination of the employment contract. The factual impossibility of reinstatement means that the reinstatement request no longer has a concrete counterpart. In such situations, reinstatement claims effectively transform into a process aimed at determining compensation and other labor receivables.
- Conclusion
The closure of a workplace directly affects the reinstatement process from both a legal and factual perspective. Since reinstatement is not possible in a genuinely closed workplace, a reinstatement decision loses its practical significance. However, if the employer abuses this situation by alleging closure while in fact continuing its operations—namely, in cases of sham or collusive closure—this issue will be scrutinized during judicial proceedings. As reflected in the precedents of the Court of Cassation, if it is determined that the closure claim lacks sincerity or that business activities continue under another name, the termination may be deemed invalid and reinstatement may be ordered.
On the other hand, in some cases, workplace closure occurs not at the time of termination but while the reinstatement lawsuit is ongoing. In such cases, although the court primarily takes into account the conditions existing at the time of termination, the complete cessation of activities during the proceedings eliminates the factual enforceability of reinstatement. In such circumstances, the legal consequences of the decision are generally limited to reinstatement compensation and other labor-related receivables.
In conclusion, while workplace closure legally limits reinstatement claims, it does not eliminate the employee’s rights. Both mediation and judicial processes enable the review of whether the employer’s closure decision was made in accordance with the principle of good faith and allow for the compensation of any potential harm suffered by the employee.
Attorney At Law Zeliha Nur Yıldırım