Does An Employee's Extended Period Of Sick Leave Grant The Employer The Right To Terminate The Emploment Contract? 29 August 2025

Conditions for the Employer's Right to Immediate Termination Based on Just Cause
 

Article 25/I (a) of Labour Law No. 4857 regulates the employer's right and conditions to terminate the employment contract in cases where the employee contracts an illness arising from their own fault, disorderly lifestyle, or alcoholism. Paragraph (b) of the same article governs the right and conditions for termination when the employee's illness is incurable and poses a risk to working at the workplace. The second paragraph of Article 25/I(b) regulates the right and conditions for termination in cases where the employee is absent from work due to health reasons for a period exceeding a certain duration, excluding the situations listed in paragraph (a). According to the article, "the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract without notice due to the employee's illness, accident, childbirth, and pregnancy; this right arises after the duration of these conditions exceeds six weeks beyond the notice periods specified in Article 17, based on the employee's length of service at the workplace."
 

As can be seen, the first condition for the employer's right to terminate is that, the employee's absence from work due to a medical report exceeds the notice period by six weeks. For example, if an employee with one year of seniority has uninterrupted sick leave resulting in absence from work, and the notice period according to this seniority is four weeks, the employer may exercise the right to immediate termination for just cause if the absence exceeds ten weeks by adding six weeks to the notice period. It should be noted that the notice period to be considered in calculating this duration is generally regarded as the notice period applicable at the start date of the uninterrupted sick leave. For instance, if an employee with five months of seniority begins their sick leave, the notice period should be accepted as two weeks; even if during the elapsed time the employee's seniority increases and the notice period rises to four weeks, it is interpreted that the original notice period at the start of the sick leave should be taken into account.
 

The second condition for the termination right granted to the employer is that the employee's medical report(s) must be uninterrupted for the specified duration. In its Case No. 2018/1729, Decision No. 2018/19804  decision the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation evaluated this issue as follows: "In the specific dispute, there were gaps between the rest reports, and none of the reports individually exceeded the notice period by six weeks; therefore, the conditions for termination under Article 25/1 of the Labour Law were not met." Consequently, not only does the total of fragmented medical reports exceeding this period not grant the employer the right to just cause termination, but also even a one-day gap between reports prevents the employer from immediately terminating the employment contract for just cause under Article 25/1-b of the Labour Law.
 

Areas of Ambiguity in Practice
 

In practice, two main uncertainties arise regarding this issue: The first is whether the employer's right to just cause termination is nullified if the employee's medical report results from a occupational accident. A literal interpretation of the law indicates that obtaining a medical report due to an occupational accident does not eliminate the employer's right to terminate. Hence, Article 25/1-b of the Labour Law does not provide any exceptions related to occupational accidents.
 

The other issue giving rise to uncertainty is whether the employer is required to obtain a written defense from the employee prior to termination due to absenteeism exceeding the notice period by more than six weeks. Contrary to common practice, this matter was explicitly resolved in the 2018 decision1 of the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, which ruled that the employer exercising this termination right is not obligated to obtain a defense from the employee.
 

Payments Related to Termination
 

The issue of whether severance pay must be paid to an employee whose employment contract is terminated by the employer due to a medical report exceeding the notice period by six weeks is frequently misunderstood in practice. It is often assumed that all termination reasons regulated under Article 25 of Labour Law No. 4857 grant the employer the right to terminate the contract without paying severance or notice pay; however, this is not the case. In terminations based on health reasons listed in the first paragraph of Article 25, the employer is obliged to pay severance compensation. Therefore, according to Article 14 of Labour Law No. 1475, which remains in force, severance pay is only excluded in cases of misconduct and breach of good faith as specified in Article 25/II. Therefore, under Article 25/I(b) of the Labour Law regulating the employer's right to just cause termination when the medical report period exceeds the notice period by six weeks, severance pay must be paid by the employer if the employee has more than one year of seniority. When calculating severance pay, the period during which the employee is on medical leave corresponding to the notice period plus six weeks is counted as service time; any medical leave days exceeding this period are not included in the length of service. The Court of Cassation's established rulings align with this, with precedent decisions2 stating: "On the other hand, the period to be considered in calculating severance pay should be determined by including, alongside the actual working period, the portion of the employee's medical leave corresponding to the notice period plus six weeks as part of the service duration." Following these explanations regarding severance pay, it should be noted that since this termination reason constitutes immediate termination for just cause, the employer is not obliged to grant a notice period or pay notice compensation to the employee.