The legal nature of the absence must be determined first
An employee not being seen at the workplace at a given time may be a different breach: failing to come to work for a full day, arriving late, leaving early, abandoning the post, or a different violation within a remote-work arrangement. These are not the same event. For Art. 25/II-g, which requires absence for a full working day, short delays on different days should not be added up hour by hour to artificially make a full day.
If the employee is at the workplace but does not perform the duty, the situation is examined, where the conditions are met, in terms of insistence on not performing the duty or another type of conduct. Days on which the employer did not let the employee in, gave no work, or had previously dismissed the employee verbally cannot be presented as the employee’s unauthorized absence either. Absence records created after the notice of termination do not make the earlier termination justified. [K01]
From which record is the employee’s duty to work determined?
The employment contract, the shift schedule, the weekly work plan, the leave record and the notices given to the employee are assessed together. Changing the schedule afterwards or relying on a shift that was never announced to the employee creates a proof problem. For remote work and field work, the absence of a physical card swipe may not by itself prove that the employee did not work.
The possibility of a technical outage in a recording system, a forgotten card or the use of a different entrance should also be investigated. The safe approach is not to tie a firm conclusion to a single data point, but to compare different records consistent with the nature of the work.
The three separate absence options in Art. 25/II-g
Each of the options listed in the law applies to absence that is unauthorized and not based on a valid excuse. The three options need not occur together, but all the conditions of at least one of them must be met. [K01]
| Statutory option | What to examine | Incorrect approach |
|---|---|---|
| Two consecutive working days | The employee’s successive working days | Automatically counting any two calendar days that are adjacent |
| Two working days after a holiday within one month | Working days that follow two different holidays | Counting every late arrival as a full-day absence |
| Three working days in one month | Three working days within the relevant one-month period | Adding up three separate events within a year |
A working day is not the same as a calendar day
Whether Saturday or Sunday is a working day cannot be determined without examining the employee’s work schedule. Not every weekend is a day off for every employee. Conversely, a weekly rest day or leave day on which the employee has no duty to work cannot be recorded as an absence. The contractual and statutory basis for working on a public holiday should be checked separately.
When a day on which the employee has no duty to work falls in between, how consecutiveness is assessed is examined according to the employee’s actual work calendar. For this reason, the record should state not only “did not come to work on Monday” but also the shift for that day and the source of the duty to work.
How is the one-month period handled?
The absence calculation should not be made mechanically between the first and last day of a calendar month. The one-month period connected with the first absence, the order of the relevant days and the case law applied should be taken into account. Hypothetically, three events occurring at intervals each exceeding one month cannot be turned into a single one-month absence group merely because they fall within the same calendar year.
A collective labor agreement cannot change the statutory threshold to the employee’s detriment
In its decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 13.04.2026, E.2026/1123, K.2026/3102, absences in three different months were examined. The fact that the workplace disciplinary regime provided for dismissal on repetition did not eliminate the severance and notice consequences where the conditions for termination for cause under Art. 25/II-g had not been met. The decision shows that a disciplinary sanction and a statutory ground for termination for cause are not the same thing. [D02]
A workplace regime may provide for disciplinary consequences in accordance with the law. However, a general internal rule such as “anyone who fails to come to work three times receives no compensation” does not replace the scope and protections of the law.
Inquiry into leave and valid excuse
If leave was granted, the characterization as absence changes
A day on which the employer or an authorized person granted leave cannot later be treated as unauthorized merely because there is no signed leave form. Whether the claimed leave really existed is investigated. Messages, e-mails, shift swaps, the statement of the authorized supervisor and earlier workplace practice may be important together.
By contrast, the employee’s unilateral statement “deduct it from my annual leave” does not mean the leave is regarded as used in every case. The request, the approval, the authority of the person who approved and how the employee understood the answer given should be determined according to the file. A recommendation for corporate documentation should not be used as a formality to disregard a leave that was granted.
Health and family events
Illness, an accident, a serious condition of a close family member or other compelling events are important in the assessment of a valid excuse. The scope and date of the report and its link to the inability to work on the days concerned are assessed. Not every excuse is of a kind that can be proved only by prior written leave; the nature of the emergency should be taken into account.
Doubt about a report and proof of a forged report are different
The employer’s disbelief of a medical report does not invalidate it automatically. If there is doubt about its accuracy, a lawful verification route should be used and unnecessary health data should not be collected. If a forged document or a false leave statement is proved, other grounds for termination for cause may be discussed; drawing a firm conclusion from a social media photograph alone is not safe. [K07]
Submitting the document later
Why the employee notified the excuse late, which period the document covers and what information had already reached the employer should be assessed. The employer should not disregard a genuine excuse submitted later merely because it was not in the first record. That said, late notification may, depending on the nature of the event, give rise to a separate discussion of breach of duty.
How is the absence record prepared?
The record should be based on actual observation and existing records. The identity of the workplace and the employee, the date of the event, the shift, when and how the absence was established, the check of leave information, attempts at contact and the details of the persons who made the observation should be clearly stated. Records prepared for more than one day should make it possible to tell which day rests on which observation.
Instead of unexamined legal conclusions and conclusions about intent, such as “committed theft”, “abandoned the job” or “deliberately did not come”, the record should state the observed fact. Witnesses should confirm what they actually know; the signature of a person who was not at the workplace is not a record that reflects the truth. Creating documents retroactively afterwards aggravates the dispute instead of preventing it.
A record alone is not conclusive evidence
That it was drawn up by the employer’s personnel makes the document neither worthless nor conclusive by itself. The witness’s source of information, the time the record was drawn up, electronic attendance records and its consistency with leave and medical documents are assessed. Records pointing to the employee’s valid excuse should also be preserved in the file.
| Event timeline field | Information to record |
|---|---|
| Day and shift | Date, start/end, the notified work plan |
| Actual situation | Full-day absence, late arrival or a different event |
| Leave and excuse | Request, approval, report, communication and reply |
| Source of information | Direct observation, timesheet, access or work record |
| Learning | The date the authority competent to terminate learned of it |
| Action | Request for explanation, reply and time of notification |
This timeline does not replace a legal decision; it makes visible the dates and documents on which the decision rests. If there is a day of leave, a non-working day or a proven excuse, that too should be clearly recorded.
The excuse request, the defense and the time limit must be handled together
For termination for cause in accordance with the conditions of Art. 25/II, there is a special exception to the defense rule in Art. 19. However, this is not freedom to refrain from inquiring at all into the reason for the absence. A collective labor agreement or a disciplinary regime may have introduced additional procedural safeguards. Requesting the employee’s explanation helps both to establish the facts correctly and in the later assessment of proof. [K01]
The request should state the dates of absence and the matter to be explained; a reasonable and realistic opportunity to reply should be given. It should not be claimed that the law sets a three-day excuse period for every file. Where the employee is, whether the communication reached the employee and the nature of the emergency are assessed.
The start of the Art. 26 period
The time-limit analysis is made from the point at which the unexcused absence reached the statutory threshold and was learned by the authority competent to terminate. The continuing nature of the absence is not a ground for holding back, without limit, a termination ground that was completed and known on earlier days. The interruption of the event, the employee’s return and new absences should be recorded separately. [K01][D01]
Asking repeatedly for a defense or having the record signed late does not artificially renew the date of learning. Who the person competent to terminate is should be verified through the company’s internal authority structure. If the day on which human resources learned and the day on which the competent body learned of the event with all its elements differ, the transfer and review in between should be explainable.
The notice of termination and the assessment if the employee returns
The notice of termination should clearly show the days of absence, the duty to work and the facts relied on. The written-form and notification rules in the post-2025 text of Labor Law Art. 109 are taken into account; the written-form requirement for notices producing the consequence of termination has not been removed by the KEP (registered electronic mail) provision. A notary procedure is not mandatory for every event, but proof that the notice reached the addressee is important. [K08]
In some files, continuing to employ the employee after the event may influence the assessment that the event was accepted or that the right of termination was waived. Even so, a generalization such as every short period of work is automatically treated as forgiveness cannot be made. The continuation of the review, the knowledge of the authorized persons, the time elapsed, the employer’s conduct and the characteristics of the event are assessed together. [D01]
If the employee submits a new excuse or medical document on return, it should be reviewed seriously before the procedure is completed. For the employer to make a lawful decision, the evidence both for and against must be in the file.
Monetary consequences and routes of recourse
Where the conditions of Art. 25/II-g have been met and the right was exercised in time, the outcome for severance pay and notice pay is determined accordingly. By contrast, claims such as the wages for the period worked and accrued unused annual leave are not erased merely because of the absence ground. If the conditions were not met, severance pay, notice pay and, within the scope of job security (iş güvencesi), reinstatement may come into question. [K01][K14]
For an employee within the scope of reinstatement, the one-month mediation application and the two-week time limit for filing suit after the failure to reach agreement must be protected separately. Sending an explanation to the employer or asking for the SGK exit code to be corrected is not an application that replaces these periods. In receivables claims, mediation as a condition for filing suit and the relevant statute of limitations are examined. [K05]
Scenario analysis in an absence file
In an absence dispute, it is not just empty days on the calendar that are counted. Whether the employee was obliged to work that day, the leave or assignment status, to whom the notice was given, whether the shift changed and when the excuse was learned are assessed together. [K01][D02]
| Scenario | Legal question | Priority record |
|---|---|---|
| A shift change was notified at the last minute | Had the employee learned of the new shift properly? | Shift schedule, time of notice, system and message records |
| Verbal leave is claimed to have been given | What was the authority of the person who gave leave and the parties’ earlier practice? | Manager’s statement, leave system, witnesses and correspondence |
| A medical report was submitted later | Does the report cover the day concerned and can its authenticity be verified? | Report, e-report record, notification and health institution information |
| One day of absence in each of three separate months | Has one of the statutory options in Art. 25/II-g been met? | Calendar, shift and collective labor agreement; the statutory threshold separately |
| A remote worker did not log in to the system | How were the duty to work and an access failure defined? | System log, task delivery, communication and technical failure record |
| Absence for only part of the day | Is the event a full-day absence, or late arrival or early departure? | Entry-exit, shift, task and manager record |
The record standard
For each day, a record should be kept close to the time of the event, containing the date and time, explaining the shift the employee was due to work and how the absence was established. The sentence “did not come to work” alone does not address the possibility of leave, remote work, a change of duty or a system failure. The record’s witnesses should be persons who actually know the event; the number of signatures should not be used as a mechanical condition of validity.
The excuse request and the six business days must be managed together
The excuse request clarifies whether the absence occurred without authorization and without a valid reason. However, unnecessary repetitions, or prolonging the process although the answer is already known, do not renew the Art. 26 period. The date of learning and the moment the authority competent to terminate gained access to the file should be tied to concrete records. [D01]
If the employee returns to work before the notice of termination
The return does not automatically remove the earlier absence; however, the excuse, the employer’s acceptance, the continued employment and the proportionality of the sanction are reassessed. Employing the employee for a long time after the return and then making the same event a ground for termination may give rise to discussion of waiver and of the time limit.
Order of steps for an absence file
- Verify the working day and the shift.
- Check the leave, assignment, report and technical-failure records.
- Draw up a record close to the time of the event.
- Request the excuse through reachable channels and keep the reply.
- Calculate the statutory threshold, the authority and the Art. 26 period separately.
- State the ground for termination clearly; complete the service of notice and the final payments.
Conclusion
The reliability of an absence file is achieved not by producing many records, but by correctly establishing the actual working day, the leave and excuse, the statutory threshold and the date of learning. The employer should not move toward a firm conclusion without seeing the employee’s explanation; the employee, too, should preserve the excuse and the notices given. Instead of creating a termination for cause on a faulty record, the action suited to the legal nature of the event should be chosen.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is failing to come to work for one day a ground for termination for cause in every case?
No. The numerical and time-period conditions of Art. 25/II-g are assessed together with the absence of authorization and of an excuse. [K01]
Is one day of absence in each of three different months enough?
The mere fact that three events fall within the same year is not enough. The period and consecutiveness options in the law must be met. [D02]
Can late hours be added up to make an absence day?
Full-day absence and late arrival are different. The condition of Art. 25/II-g should not be created by mechanically adding up hours.
Does Saturday count?
It is determined according to the employee’s work schedule. It cannot be automatically counted as a weekly rest day or as a working day for all employees.
If there is no signed leave form, is there no leave?
No. Whether leave was granted can be investigated through messages, the statement of the authorized person and other records.
Can an employee who brought a report still be dismissed?
The authenticity and scope of the report and the ground for termination should be examined. It is not correct to treat a day covered by a report automatically as unexcused absence. [K01]
Must three days always be given to request an excuse?
There is no fixed statutory period of this kind for all events. A realistic opportunity to reply, the event and any applicable contractual procedure are taken into account.
If there is a record, is the case necessarily won?
No. The record is compared with the other evidence; the claims of leave and excuse and the actual work schedule are examined.
Is the leave pay of someone dismissed for absence forfeited?
No. Accrued unused annual leave pay is different from the outcome for severance and notice pay. [K01]
Can a record be drawn up afterwards for a person who was dismissed earlier?
Failing to come to work after an earlier termination cannot be used to produce, after the fact, a justified ground for a past termination. The actual date of termination must be determined.
Related Employment Law Guides
- Termination of the Employment Contract for Cause: Conditions, Notification, Proof and Consequences for Employees and Employers: Grounds for termination for cause for employees and employers, the six business days, the defense, notification, proof, compensation, mediation and routes of litigation.
- How Are the Six Business Days and One Year Calculated in Termination for Cause? Labor Law Art. 26, the Date of Learning and the Competent Authority: Calculation of the six-business-day and one-year preclusive period under Labor Law Art. 26, the date of learning, the competent authority and the duration of an investigation.
- How Is a Defense Taken from an Employee? Request for Defense, Appropriate Time, Refusal to Sign and Termination: Guide to the request-for-defense letter, a concrete allegation, appropriate time, service, refusal to sign, failure to reply, assessment and the procedure in termination.
Sources
K01 — Labor Law No. 4857; in particular Arts. 8, 11, 13, 15, 17–29, 32, 40–44, 53, 59, 74, 75 and 109, as amended by Laws No. 7555 and No. 7578. Review the source.
D02 — 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2026/1123, K.2026/3102, 13.04.2026. Days of absence and the statutory threshold for termination for cause. The full text was reviewed via De Jure. Review the source.
K07 — Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698; Arts. 4–7, 9–12. KVKK explanation on Special Categories of Personal Data; employment and occupational health and safety obligations under Art. 6 as amended by Law No. 7499. Review the source.
D01 — 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2024/10547, K.2024/14444, 24.10.2024. The learning of the authority competent to terminate; the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion were assessed separately. The full text was reviewed via De Jure. Review the source.
K08 — Law No. 7555, Art. 23; amendment to Labor Law No. 4857 Art. 109: written notification, KEP with the employee’s written consent and the special case of the notice of termination. Review the source.
K14 — Labor Law No. 1475, Art. 14; Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Labor Law Frequently Asked Questions, explanations on severance pay. Review the source.
K05 — Labor Courts Law No. 7036; in particular mediation as a condition for filing suit, jurisdiction and the relevant transitional provisions. Review the source.