First, Determine Which Right the Period Concerns
For Article 26 to apply, the ground for termination must fall within the breaches of morality and good faith rules under Article 24 or 25. In different grounds, such as illness, force majeure, or absence due to detention or custody, this six-day template is not applied as it stands. It also cannot be concluded that no timing requirement exists in those areas; the waiting period and other conditions of the relevant provision apply. [K01]
The six-business-day period should not be confused with the one month within which the employee applies to a mediator for reinstatement, the two weeks within which suit is filed after the mediation fails, the limitation period for employee claims, or the period for the social security (SGK) termination notice. More than one calendar may exist in the same file. For each calendar, the triggering event, the type of period, the step to be taken and the document proving completion should be recorded separately.
The Consequence of Being a Preclusive Period
Once the period has passed, exercising the relevant power of immediate termination on the basis of the same event becomes legally problematic. By its nature, expiry of the period is taken into account by the court of its own motion. Therefore, the other party's failure to object expressly does not make the expiry safe. Nor does proving the just cause in substance, on its own, cure a failure to act within the period. [D01]
However, the loss of the possibility of termination for cause does not mean that in every file the employee will necessarily be reinstated or that all of the employee's claims will be accepted. Valid reason, a different mode of ending the relationship, compensation and job security conditions are assessed separately. The time-limit issue and the legal weight of the conduct are not the same examination.
When Do the Six Business Days Start?
Mere Rumor Differs from Sufficient Learning
The learning must be of such content as to enable the event relied on for termination and the person concerned to be identified. A vague rumor is not at the same level as an incident report, an express admission or a verified transaction record. On the other hand, it is also incorrect to postpone indefinitely the starting point of an event that has already been learned by saying "not all documents have arrived yet."
Who learned what and on which date should be explained with concrete documents such as email and paper records, delivery of a report, meeting notes or a request for a statement of defense. In particular, if a request for a defense statement describing the same event in detail was sent earlier, this may create a dispute over the employer's claim to have obtained knowledge only at a later date.
Employer Who Is a Natural Person and Employer Who Is a Legal Entity
In the case of an employer who is a natural person, the person who learned is easier to identify. In companies, however, the roles of the board of directors, the manager, the general manager, human resources or the disciplinary board are not the same. Who the authority competent to terminate is is investigated through the articles of association, representation and delegation of authority, the personnel regulation and any applicable collective labor agreement. A job title alone may not be sufficient. [D01]
A branch supervisor may have witnessed the event but may be a manager without authority to terminate. In that case, the date of transmission to the competent authority becomes important. Conversely, if the company has in practice delegated the power of termination to that person, the earlier knowledge cannot be treated as ineffective on the claim that another signature was later affixed only at headquarters. The authority structure and the actual practice must be consistent.
The Employee's Learning
Article 26 does not concern only the employer. The dates of learning and of the act are also important for the employee's termination for cause under Article 24/II. Shortfalls in pay, a concealed transaction, or the later emergence of the employer's conduct are different from one another. When and what fact the employee learned is examined through payroll, bank, correspondence and notification records. [K01]
The Day of Learning and the Work Calendar
In practice, the day of learning is not counted, and counting is done over the following business days. However, the concept of a business day should not automatically be identified with the Monday–Friday calendar. For Saturdays, weekly rest days and public holidays, the workplace's working pattern and the assessment applicable to the dispute are important. Neither generalization, "all weekends are excluded" or "every calendar day counts," is safe. [K01][D01]
Hypothetical Six-Business-Day Example
The example below assumes that the competent person learned of the event on a Monday, that Saturday is a business day, that Sunday is the weekly rest day and that there is no public holiday in between. This is not an automatic calculator applicable to all workplaces.
| Day | Position in the calculation |
|---|---|
| Monday | Day of learning; outside the count |
| Tuesday | First business day |
| Wednesday | Second business day |
| Thursday | Third business day |
| Friday | Fourth business day |
| Saturday | Fifth business day by assumption |
| Sunday | Weekly rest day by assumption; outside the count |
| Following Monday | Sixth business day |
In a real case, the calendar, the working pattern, official holidays and the scope of the learning must be checked. Planning to act on the last day in particular enlarges notification and delivery problems. As an internal practice, an earlier decision and notification target may be set; this does not mean that the statutory period has been extended.
Sending and Receipt of the Notice
Termination is a declaration of intent addressed to the other party. Taking a decision or preparing a draft within the company is not, on its own, a safe record of completion. To avoid disputes over whether the moment of exercising the right or the moment the notice reaches the addressee will be assessed, the step should be planned so that the content of the notice and its receipt are documented within the period.
Preparation of a notary dispatch, handing it to a courier, recording it in an electronic system and delivery to the addressee may be different times. For all files, the assurance that "the day it was given to the notary is sufficient" cannot be established. The legal regime of the channel used and the concrete records are examined separately. [K08]
The One-Year Period and the Material Benefit Exception
The One Year Is Assessed from the Occurrence of the Act
While the six business days are a relative limit tied to learning, the one-year period is an upper limit tied to the act. Absent an exception, the passing of either may remove the relevant possibility of termination for cause. Instead of calculating the one-year period in every case as three hundred and sixty-five days, the calendar and the relevant date rules should be taken into account. Whether the act occurred at one time or in a continuing manner is also determined separately. [K01][D01]
A Material Benefit and Harm to the Employer Are Not the Same
The law provides that the one-year limit does not apply where the employee obtains a material benefit from the event. The employer's suffering a loss does not always show that the employee obtained a material benefit. The transaction records, the transfer, the payment or the fact of benefit must be made concrete. For example, a faulty transaction may cause loss; but this alone does not prove that the employee obtained a benefit for himself or herself.
Even when the exception is proved, the six-business-day limit after learning of the event applies separately. The approach "there is a material benefit, we can terminate whenever we like" is not correct. The employee's other liability for loss and compensation is assessed under its own conditions. [K01]
The Distinction Between a Continuing Violation and a Completed Event
In unpaid wages, uninterrupted absence or conduct alleged to be continuing in nature, the continuation of the violation and the date on which it was completed are important. It cannot be accepted that each new day restarts the periods for all earlier events. A truly continuing unlawfulness differs from the continuation of the consequences of an act completed in the past.
In absence, the point at which the statutory day threshold was reached, when the employee returned and when the excuse became understood are examined. In wages, the relevant payment due date, any later partial or full performance, the employee's state of knowledge and the claim on which the termination is based are determined. Where there are several independent events, recording the date of each separately is safer than turning them into a single vague narrative of "it has been going on for a long time."
How Do a Disciplinary Investigation and the Defense Affect the Period?
There Is No Automatic Suspension or Renewal
Article 26 contains no general rule that the six business days stop automatically once an investigation is opened or restart as defense statements arrive. The investigation may show when the competent authority obtained sufficient information. However, merely keeping the investigation file open does not prove that learning did not occur.
Where the scope of the allegations is already known in detail when a defense statement is requested, the claim that a second or third request changed the starting point must be separately justified. Obtaining necessary evidence is to be distinguished from dragging the process out. Giving the employee a real opportunity to understand the event attributed to him or her and to respond must also not be neglected.
The 2024 Decision with Majority and Dissent
In its decision Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, 24.10.2024, E.2024/10547, K.2024/14444, the court took as its basis the learning of the disciplinary board competent to terminate. The majority, finding reasonable the investigation period, shorter than three months, between the submission of the defense and the board's review in the specific case, reached the conclusion that the termination for cause was made in time. [D01]
The dissenting opinion in the same decision focused on the justification for the long wait and the composition of the board, stating that a delay arising from the employer's internal operations should not keep the employee under pressure of termination for a long time. This cannot be presented as if it were the reasoning of the majority. Nor does the decision create a license for a fixed three-month investigation.
The practical consequence of this distinction is that keeping only the final board decision in the file is not sufficient. The board's basis of authority, the submission of the file to it, the actual review conducted and the intervening steps should be visible. The difference of interpretation on timing makes it all the more important for the business to avoid unnecessary delay.
Forgiveness, Continued Employment and Loss of Right
An express statement of forgiveness given after learning of the event, or employer conduct incompatible with the event, may affect the assessment of the right of termination. However, not every continuation of work, not the silence of every manager presumed to know of the event, and not the employee's turning up for a shift while the investigation continues is automatically forgiveness. The concrete intent, authority and timing are examined together.
The employer's drawing up a new document after the period has passed does not revive the earlier event. A truly separate act that comes to light later may be assessed under its own elements and period. Rewriting the old event in a newly dated report is to be distinguished from establishing a new event.
How Should a Period-Tracking File Be Set Up?
| Record | Why is it needed? |
|---|---|
| Date or period of the act | One-year limit and the continuing-violation distinction |
| First information and its source | Difference between rumor, observation and verified information |
| Authority competent to terminate | Identifying the person or board through the authority and representation documents |
| Date the authority learned | Dispute over the starting point of the six business days |
| Investigation and defense | Showing that the intervening steps were genuine |
| Notice and delivery | Documenting use and receipt |
| Separate application periods | Not confusing reinstatement, claims and SGK procedures |
This record system is not an internal protocol that extends the statutory period. It is a working tool that prevents the period from being miscalculated. The confidentiality of correspondence and records should be protected; the file history should be preserved without alteration.
Consequences of an Incorrect Calculation
Where termination for cause is not possible because of the period, severance and notice pay are examined according to the actual manner in which the relationship ended. If the reinstatement conditions are present, the valid reason and the procedure are assessed separately. The existence of the employee's different claims is not the same thing as the Article 26 period. Nor does applying to a mediator reopen a termination-for-cause period that the employer missed in the past. [K01][K05]
Example File Scenarios for Period Calculation
Calculating six business days is not merely adding six days to a calendar. It must be determined which conduct falls within Article 24 or Article 25/II, when and with what clarity the matter was learned, whether that person is competent to terminate, and when the notice produced legal effect. [K01][D01]
| Event | Starting question | Wrong approach | Correct record |
|---|---|---|---|
| The store manager saw the event | Is the manager competent to terminate, or to whom must the file be forwarded? | Treating every manager's learning as an automatic start, or never treating it as one | Authority instruction, first report and time of transmission |
| An internal audit report was prepared | On what date did the competent authority learn the material event in sufficient scope? | Postponing the period indefinitely by the report date | Assignment, report flow and board agenda |
| The employee gave a defense statement | Does the statement contain new and decisive information? | Accepting that the period restarts with every defense statement | Request for defense, reply and decision note |
| The conduct lasted several days | A single event, a continuing violation or separate acts? | Automatically treating the last day as the starting point for the whole past | Day-by-day schedule of events and effects |
| Notary/post/KEP used on the last day | What are the requirements for the declaration of intent to be received and any special form? | Treating the moment of sending as sufficient in every case | Signature, dispatch, delivery and KEP acceptance records |
A Period Calculation Is Not Complete Without an Authority Matrix
The allocation of duties among human resources, the disciplinary board, the general manager and the board of directors should be clear in internal company documents. The competent authority cannot be chosen after the fact; creating an approval chain after the event merely to extend the period is incompatible with the rule of good faith. Nor is the knowledge of a person without authority wholly irrelevant; the file is expected to be forwarded to the competent body within a reasonable time.
The Business-Day Calendar Should Be Tied to a Document
In calculating business days, public holidays, weekly rest days and the workplace's actual working pattern are taken into account. Saturday cannot automatically be treated as a non-working day at every workplace. In the calculation table, the day of learning, the days not counted and the last day should be shown in separate columns. In a file where the last day is doubtful, the safest method is not to leave the step to the last day.
If the Period Has Passed, Not All Legal Possibilities End
The passing of the Article 26 period may remove the possibility of immediate termination for cause on the basis of the conduct concerned. However, the gravity and continuity of the event, the job security conditions and whether the event could serve as a basis for another type of termination within a reasonable time are assessed separately. This assessment does not give a right to use the same event later, under a different name, without limit.
Minimum Records to Be in the Decision File
- The date and source of the act or event.
- The person who first learned of it and that person's position.
- The authority competent to terminate and the document of authority.
- The date the file was transmitted to the competent authority.
- The dates of the review, the defense and the board.
- The six-business-day and one-year calculation.
- The text of the notice, signature, dispatch and delivery record.
Conclusion
A safe calculation of the termination-for-cause period is more than ticking six boxes on a calendar. Whether the ground falls within Article 26, identifying the actual learning and the competent authority, examining the one-year limit and the exception separately, and documenting the notice are required. Investigation, evidence-gathering and defense processes should be managed not outside this calendar but together with it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the day of learning included in the six days?
In practice, the day of learning is left out and the following business days are counted. The actual learning and the work calendar must also be determined separately. [D01]
Is Saturday automatically excluded?
No. The business-day calculation should not be made solely on a Monday–Friday assumption; the relevant working and holiday pattern should be examined.
Is there a one-year limit for every termination for cause?
The scope of Article 26 is the grounds of breach of morality and good faith rules. Other just causes are assessed under their own provisions. [K01]
If there is a material benefit, does the six-business-day limit fall away?
No. The exception is for the one-year limit; the six business days tied to learning remain separately protected. [K01]
Is learning by human resources always the starting point?
The authority to terminate and the transmission of the event to the competent person or board are investigated. The name of the unit alone is not sufficient. [D01]
Does requesting a defense statement stop the period?
It does not stop it by itself. The effect of the defense on completing the learning is assessed on the concrete event.
Does submitting the file to the disciplinary board always renew the period?
No. The board's authority, earlier knowledge and the actual review process must be considered together. [D01]
Is the three-month investigation period a general right?
No. In a specific event, the majority of a 2024 decision found the period reasonable; the same decision has a dissent and sets no general fixed period. [D01]
Is sending by notary on the last day definitely sufficient?
A concrete assessment is needed of the use of the notice and of its receipt. Leaving it to the last day and relying only on the dispatch record is risky.
When the period has passed, are all of the employee's claims won?
No. The period for termination for cause, valid reason, compensation, reinstatement conditions and other claims require separate legal examination. [K01]
Related Labor Law Guides
- Termination of the Employment Contract for Cause: Conditions, Notice, Proof and Consequences for Employees and Employers: Grounds for termination for cause for employees and employers, the six business days, defense, notice, proof, compensation, mediation and routes of recourse.
- Termination Due to an Employee's Absence: Report, Excuse, Notice and Proof: A guide to statutory thresholds for unexcused absence, business-day calculation, investigation of the excuse, the report, the termination period, notice and proof.
- How Is a Defense Statement Obtained from an Employee? Request, Reasonable Period, Refusal to Sign and Termination: A guide to the letter requesting a defense statement, concrete allegations, reasonable period, service, refusal to sign, failure to reply, evaluation and procedure in termination.
Sources
K01 — Labor Law No. 4857 (4857 sayılı İş Kanunu); in particular Articles 8, 11, 13, 15, 17–29, 32, 40–44, 53, 59, 74, 75 and 109. As amended by Laws No. 7555 and 7578. Review the source.
D01 — Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2024/10547, K.2024/14444, 24.10.2024. Learning by the authority competent to terminate; the majority and the dissent are assessed separately. The full text was reviewed via De Jure. Review the source.
K08 — Law No. 7555, Article 23; amendment to Article 109 of Labor Law No. 4857: written notice, KEP (registered electronic mail) with the employee's written consent, and the special position of the termination notice. Review the source.
K05 — Labor Courts Law No. 7036 (7036 sayılı İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu); in particular mandatory mediation as a condition of suit, jurisdiction and the relevant transitional provisions. Review the source.