An employee's social media post is not, on its own, sufficient ground for terminating an employment contract. The employer must specify the content of the post, to whom it was shared, its effect on the employment relationship and the termination ground it relies on. The employee's freedom of expression and the duty of loyalty owed to the employer are weighed together. A remark made within a closed circle of friends and the public release of a trade secret do not have the same legal character.
This article addresses the private-law employment relationship and, in particular, the decision in Volkan Çakır, Application No. 2017/35488, April 7, 2021. Disciplinary regimes for public officials are a separate subject. The employee's status under Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), the conditions of job security and the grounds stated in the termination notice directly shape the route of application.
How is an employee's freedom of expression protected in a private employment relationship?
Although the employer is a private person, the courts resolving the dispute are obliged to strike a fair balance between fundamental rights. An employee's personal opinions are not entirely extinguished by entering into an employment relationship. In addition, the employer's interest in protecting its trade secrets, its reputation and order in the workplace is also taken into account in law.
Freedom of expression is not a rule that legitimizes every conduct within an employment relationship. Disclosing a customer's confidential information, a serious personal attack on a co-worker, or conduct that damages concrete trust in the workplace may lead to different legal consequences. However, these consequences must rest on the fulfilment of legal conditions, not on the employer's disapproval of the post.
Legal characterization: In private employment relationships, constitutional review often concerns the State's positive obligation. The question is whether the courts protected the employee against interference by private parties with adequate procedure and reasoning. For this reason, there is an important difference between a decision that merely repeats the employer's claim and a decision that performs an independent balancing.
Are a valid reason and a just cause the same?
Termination for a valid reason and termination for just cause, which entitles the party to terminate immediately, have different conditions and consequences. The heading the employer gives to the notice does not by itself determine the legal nature of the event. What matters is which conduct the post corresponds to, why it affected the continuation of the working relationship and which statutory provision it relies on.
The job security system in Articles 18–21 of Labour Law No. 4857 and the just-cause provisions in Article 25 should not be used interchangeably. Access to job security depends on conditions such as the number of employees, length of service, the nature of the contract and the worker's position. It cannot be said that the same reinstatement route is open to every employee.
What happened in the Volkan Çakır decision?
The applicant worked as an inspector at a bank. He shared, in a WhatsApp group of colleagues at the same bank, including people in similar positions, a photograph received from a friend showing empty boxes in front of the general manager's office. The employer terminated the contract on the ground that the post had shaken the bank's trust and reputation.
The dispute focused on the consequences that could arise if the photograph left the institution. The Constitutional Court examined the closed nature of the group, to whom the post was shared and the meaning attributed to the statement. The decision does not concern a public political post. For this reason, the distinction must not be ignored, and the decision must not be applied directly to every social media dispute.
Direct quotation from the decision
“No meaning beyond the meaning the applicant gave to the words he used should be attributed to them”
Source of the quotation: Constitutional Court (AYM), Volkan Çakır, Application No. 2017/35488, April 7, 2021, § 38. The relevant part of the sentence is reproduced.
In §§ 36–39, the Constitutional Court accepted the importance of the duty of loyalty but required a concrete assessment of the circumstances of the post and its effect on the employer. The absence of an adequate assessment of whether termination was necessary and a last resort is also an important element of the review.
The Court's ruling: It held that the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 26 of the Constitution had been violated. A retrial was indicated as the way to remedy the consequences of the violation. The decision cannot be read as meaning that all closed-group posts are immune from employment-law sanctions.
Our assessment: For the employer, explaining the risk requires more than the sentence “it could have gone outside the institution.” For the employee, the closed nature of the group is not the only defense; the nature of the content, the duty of confidentiality and the real scope of the group must also be shown.
Which facts are decisive in assessing the post?
Content, visibility and target audience
The text, image and any link in the post must be examined together. Satire, criticism, information and concrete accusation may have different natures. A criticism of a workplace practice and the publication of a customer's identity or account details cannot be subjected to the same assessment.
A public account, an account visible only to friends and a message group of specific employees are different spheres of access. The number of participants, the conditions for joining the group and whether the post was exported or passed on are important. Nevertheless, it should not be assumed that everything said in a closed group will remain secret or that the employer can never learn of it.
Effect on the working relationship and loss of trust
If the employer claims loss of reputation, the facts on which this is based must be explained. If customer complaints, disruption of service or a concrete breach of confidentiality are alleged, a link must be established between them and the post. Actual financial loss is not necessarily required in every case; however, abstract concern and a serious, identifiable risk cannot be treated as equivalent.
The employee's position matters. The obligations of staff with access to confidential data and the situation of an employee commenting on publicly available information may differ. Managerial status, representative authority and the impression that the person spoke on behalf of the institution may affect the assessment. None of these features alone closes off the entire field of expression.
Termination as a last resort
In a valid-reason review, the suitability of lighter measures and the severity of termination are assessed. The reasons why a warning, a change of duties or another measure would not suffice may be explained in the concrete case. This principle does not mean that a set number of warnings must always be given first. The weight of the act and the type of termination that applies are also important.
A social media policy in the employer's rules is not enough by itself. Whether the rule was communicated to staff, its clarity, its compatibility with fundamental rights and its consistent application should be assessed. A vague internal regulation cannot replace the conditions required by law.
Does it matter how the employer obtained the messages?
Yes. The content of a message and the method by which it was obtained raise different legal questions. Besides freedom of expression, privacy, confidentiality of communication and the protection of personal data may also come into play. A message forwarded by a participant, the inspection of the workplace system and unauthorized access to a person's private account are not the same fact.
Whether the monitoring was announced in advance, and its legitimate purpose, scope and less intrusive alternatives, are assessed according to the circumstances. The fact that the employer provided a device does not mean it has unlimited authority to access every personal communication on it. An employee who seeks to support a rights claim by unlawfully accessing other people's accounts has not used an acceptable method.
This article focuses on the freedom of expression aspect of the Volkan Çakır decision. It is not claimed that every message-monitoring dispute is resolved by the same decision. If there are separate rights claims, their facts and routes of application must be established separately.
Which documents and time limits matter after termination?
The termination notice and the date of service, the employment contract, the job description, the relevant internal regulation, the request for a written statement of defense (savunma), the employee's reply and a complete record of the post should all be kept. The written notice under Article 19 of Labour Law No. 4857, the requirement that the reason be stated clearly and precisely, and the taking of a defense where applicable should be examined. The exception concerning termination rights under Article 25/II of the Law must not be overlooked.
For a reinstatement claim, the employee must apply to a mediator within one month of service of the termination notice. If no agreement is reached, a lawsuit must be filed in the labor court within two weeks from the date the final mediation report was drawn up. These periods belong to the reinstatement route; they are not the periods for all labor receivables. The options of a person outside the scope of job security are assessed separately.
When preparing the mediation application, the correct identity of the employer and the nature of the claim must be clear. The minutes and service documents must be kept. Reinstatement, severance, notice pay and other receivables must be kept separate. Rejection of one claim does not mean that all other claims are rejected automatically.
When does an individual application arise?
An individual application to the Constitutional Court may generally be made within thirty days of learning of the final decision, after the effective ordinary remedies have been exhausted. The focus of the application is whether the courts conducted an adequate assessment that took account of fundamental rights. Asking for the evidence to be weighed again is different from showing an absence of constitutional balancing.
Substantive objections raised before the court must be linked, in the application, to the integrity of the post and the reasons for termination. A violation decision by the Constitutional Court does not mean that it calculates all labor receivables itself or establishes the employment contract directly. Redress is determined by the source of the violation and the operative part of the decision.
For details, see our articles on constitutional rights in Constitutional Court decisions, the boundary between freedom of expression and insult and disciplinary penalties for union activity. For our work in this area, see the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights applications page.
Conclusion
In a dismissal over social media, the decisive question is the concrete reason the post affected the working relationship and the extent of that effect. The Volkan Çakır decision shows that the nature of the closed group, the true meaning of the statement and the weight of the termination must be assessed together. For both employee and employer, a sound file rests on records that show the whole of the statement and its effect on the working relationship, rather than on assumptions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is dismissal over a message in a closed WhatsApp group always invalid?
No. The closed nature of the group is an important factor, but the content, the duty of confidentiality, the participants and the actual effect are also examined. The Volkan Çakır decision does not introduce an automatic rule of invalidity.
Is criticizing the employer alone a just cause for termination?
Such a result cannot be established on that basis alone. The nature of the criticism and the conditions of a serious personal attack, disclosure of confidential information or other breaches of the contract are assessed separately.
Where is the first application for reinstatement made?
In a reinstatement claim within the scope of job security, the application is made to a mediator within one month of service of the termination notice. If no agreement is reached, there is a two-week period to file a lawsuit from the final mediation report.
Must the employer always take a defense?
The conditions of Article 19 of Labour Law No. 4857 and the exception under Article 25/II must be examined together. No single defense rule can be established for all types of termination.
Does deleting the post automatically void the termination?
No. Deletion may matter for the timing and effects of the statement, but it does not automatically remove the legal assessment of the past act.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 13, 20, 22 and 26.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Volkan Çakır, Application No. 2017/35488, April 7, 2021, facts, §§ 34–40 and operative part; the link may require a login session.
- Labour Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), Articles 18–21, 25 and 26; Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Labour Law FAQ (İş Kanunu SSS), explanations on reinstatement and mediation.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Article 396; Labour Courts Law No. 7036 (İş Mahkemeleri Kanunu), Article 3.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45–50.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), Constitutional Rights: Summaries of Decisions (Nitelikli Haklar: Karar Özetleri), June 2025, the initial source on employees' freedom of expression.