I. Legal Regulation
Article 120 of the Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 states:
“All other articles of the Labor Law No. 1475 dated 25.8.1971, except for Article 14, have been repealed.”
The relevant part of the still-applicable Article 14 of Law No. 1475 is as follows:
“Severance pay:
Article 14 – If the employment contracts of workers subject to this Law are:
- Terminated by the employer for reasons other than those specified in paragraph II of Article 17 of this Law,
- Terminated by the worker in accordance with Article 16 of this Law,
- Terminated due to compulsory military service,
- Terminated to receive old age, retirement, or disability pensions or lump-sum payments from institutions or funds established by the law to which they are affiliated or by Presidential decree,
- Terminated by the worker’s own will due to reasons other than the ages stipulated in the subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (A) of the first clause of Article 60 of Law No. 506 or by completing the insurance period and number of premium payment days required for an old-age pension in accordance with the Temporary Article 81 of the same Law, Or if the employment contract is terminated by the female worker on her own initiative within one year from the date of her marriage or due to the death of the worker, the employer is required to pay the worker 30 days’ worth of wages as severance pay for each full year of service starting from the date of employment, and the same ratio shall apply for any period exceeding one year.”
Severance pay is an amount of money that the employer is obliged to pay to the worker (or their heirs) considering the worker’s seniority and wage if the worker’s employment contract is terminated for one of the reasons listed in the law after completing the minimum working period stipulated in the law (Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK), E. 2015/9-1631, K. 2017/1009, T. 24.5.2017). In order for the worker to be entitled to severance pay when terminating the contract, the employment contract must have been terminated for one of the justified reasons listed in Article 24 of Law No. 4857 or one of the reasons listed in Article 14 of Law No. 1475, which has been repealed (such as marriage, entitlement to an old-age pension, etc.) (Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber (HD), E. 2022/4884, K. 2022/5756, T. 10.5.2022).
II. This Right is Exclusively Granted to Female Workers and Must Be Exercised Within One Year from the Completion of the Official Marriage Procedure
A female worker cannot exercise this right before the marriage is officially registered. The employment contract cannot be terminated on the grounds of marriage before the official marriage procedure has been completed. In its decision dated 12.10.2016 (E. 2014/9-1136, K. 2016/968), the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) stated:
“Upon examining the concrete case, it is understood that the plaintiff submitted a petition to the defendant workplace on 30.09.2006, approximately ten days before her marriage date, with the intention of terminating her employment contract, meaning she exercised her right to terminate before completing the official marriage procedure. It is not possible to consider the act of terminating the employment contract by the plaintiff, who terminated her employment contract before the wedding, as a termination. The petition submitted to leave the workplace is considered as resignation. Therefore, it is understood that the behavior of the plaintiff was contrary to the clear provision of Article 14, paragraph 1 of Law No. 1475, which states that the right to terminate must be exercised within one year from the date of the official marriage. Therefore, it is against the procedure and the law not to comply with the Special Chamber’s reversal decision, which was also accepted by the General Assembly.”
The marriage date of the female worker must be earlier than the termination date. Indeed, in its decision dated 26.3.2024 (E. 2024/4245, K. 2024/5687), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated:
“In the resignation letter, it is written that ‘I started working as a ‘Group Supervisor’ on 02.09.2020, and I want to resign on 26.01.2022 due to marriage on my own will…’ The plaintiff’s departure notice was issued, and she left work on 26.01.2022. It is evident from the case file that the plaintiff, who married on 28.01.2022, terminated her employment contract on 26.01.2022. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s marriage date is later than the termination date. To be entitled to severance pay by terminating the employment contract due to marriage, this right must be exercised within one year from the marriage date. Considering that the right to terminate after the marriage date is a right that must be exercised within one year, it is clear that the conditions for termination due to marriage were not present for the plaintiff. Therefore, the acceptance of the plaintiff’s severance pay claim based on an incorrect justification was erroneous.”
In its decision dated 24.1.2018, the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) ruled that a termination before the official marriage procedure does not entitle the worker to severance pay (E. 2015/7-3743, K. 2018/81):
“…Given that the plaintiff effectively terminated her employment contract on 05.06.2008, and the official marriage procedure was completed on 24.06.2008, it is not possible for the plaintiff, who terminated her employment contract for a future marriage before the official marriage procedure, to be entitled to severance pay under the provision of Article 14 of Law No. 1475.”
In its decision dated 3.11.2020, the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) emphasized that the right must be exercised within one year from the date of the official marriage procedure (E. 2016/9-1871, K. 2020/822, T. 3.11.2020):
“Furthermore, it was determined from the population registry that the plaintiff married on 17.08.2003. Considering the termination notice, the lawsuit petition, and the entire file, it is understood that the plaintiff left the workplace because of marriage, and the right to terminate, stated in paragraph one of Article 14 of Law No. 1475, was exercised in accordance with the clear provision of the law, which requires that the right must be exercised within one year from the date of the official marriage procedure.”
III. The Termination of the Employment Contract by the Female Worker Within One Year from the Marriage Date Must Be Voluntary
The petition submitted by the female worker to terminate her employment contract due to marriage within one year from the date of marriage must reflect her true intention. The petition should not be given under coercion or pressure from the employer.
IV. The Employer’s Acceptance of the Termination and the Requirement for the Female Worker to Provide Notice to the Employer Are Not Required
In its decision dated 2.11.2015 (E. 2014/17600, K. 2015/30741), the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court stated:
“Article 14, paragraph one of Law No. 1475, which is still in force by reference to Article 120 of Law No. 4857, stipulates that a female worker can terminate her employment contract within one year from the date of marriage and be entitled to severance pay due to marriage. The right to terminate due to marriage begins from the date of marriage. This right is exclusively granted to the female spouse and must be exercised within one year from the completion of the official marriage procedure. If the female worker exercises the right to terminate granted by the law, the right to claim severance pay arises. The employer’s acceptance of the termination is not required. Likewise, the worker is not obliged to provide notice to the employer.”
V. Does a Female Worker’s Request for Severance Pay Constitute Abuse of Right if She Starts Another Job Shortly After Termination?
In its decision dated 27.4.1988 (E. 1988/9-225, K. 1988/369), the Supreme Court General Assembly of Civil Chambers (HGK) ruled that abuse of right is not an issue:
“According to paragraph two of Article 14 of Law No. 1475, the employment contract will be entitled to severance pay if the female worker terminates the contract ‘on her own will within one year from the date of her marriage.’ This amended provision was undoubtedly introduced to protect family unity and is a right granted by law to women who believe they cannot properly continue their working life after marriage. If a woman who is working at a workplace gets married and uses this right granted by law to obtain severance pay and leave, it cannot be said that she loses her right to work in later periods; on the other hand, a woman who leaves her previous job can continue to work by finding a new job that makes it easier to balance work and marriage than before. This is undoubtedly a subjective assessment. Since there is no issue of abuse of right in this case, the resistance is found to be appropriate and approved.”
Since a two-thirds majority was not reached in the first session, the dissenting opinion of a member who opposed the decision made by a simple majority in the second session is provided below.
DISSENTING OPINION:
The dissenting opinion relates to the implementation of the provision “the employment contract… if terminated by the woman on her own will within one year from the date of her marriage… will be entitled to severance pay” brought by Article 3 of Law No. 2869 dated 29.7.1983 to Article 14 of Law No. 1475.
Indeed, according to this legal provision, if the woman marries and informs the employer that she has terminated the employment contract within one year from the date of marriage, the employer must pay the severance pay. No other condition is required, nor is there any need to provide any reason.
However, this right is not absolute. As stipulated in Article 2 of the Civil Code, everyone must observe the rules of good faith in exercising their rights and performing their obligations.
Furthermore, it must be determined that a right arises when it is exercised in accordance with the purpose of the relevant legal provision. A right exercised in bad faith does not arise in accordance with the purpose of the law, and therefore, the birth of the right cannot be discussed.
The purpose of the law here is to provide severance pay to a woman who wants to terminate her employment contract to dedicate all her time to her home and family or because her husband does not allow her to work. For this reason, a one-year period for consideration and preparation is provided.
Indeed, the realization of these reasons is not explicitly stated in the law. However, there is no need for such a statement because this meaning is already inherent in the text. The provision cannot be interpreted in any other way, as it is granted to the newly married woman rather than to any working woman or man.
If these reasons, which form the purpose of the law, do not exist in the case, that is, if the female worker continues to work at the employer’s workplace despite getting married, she will not be entitled to severance pay.
In this case, the plaintiff woman was working at a bank, got married, and informed the employer that she had terminated the employment contract within one year from the date of marriage. However, the defendant’s defense states that the plaintiff immediately started working at another bank branch in the same neighborhood while she was on paid annual leave.
If this is indeed the case, an abuse of right is in question. Continuing to work while receiving severance pay does not align with the purpose of the law and the nature of severance pay.
This severance pay is not a marriage bonus that must be paid to the married woman.
For this reason, the decision to reject the resistance to the reversal decision of the Chamber, which requires an investigation into whether the plaintiff started working at another bank shortly after leaving, must be reversed, and I dissent from the majority opinion.