Termination of the Employment Contract for Cause: Grounds, Time Limits and Compensation for Employees and Employers

What is termination for cause and to which employment contracts does it apply?

The legal nature of immediate termination for cause

Article 2 of Law No. 4857 defines the employee, the employer and the employment relationship. The contract between the parties is a continuing obligation; under the principle of good faith, this allows the contract to be ended immediately when a serious situation arises in which its continuation can no longer be expected. Termination for cause is a unilateral declaration of intent that does not require the other party’s acceptance and takes effect when it reaches the addressee. However, the existence of a declaration of termination does not prove that the ground relied on is genuinely justified; in a dispute, the ground for termination and the facts relating to it are examined separately.

The right to terminate for cause may be exercised in both fixed-term and indefinite-term contracts when the elements listed in the law are present. The expiry of a fixed-term contract and the termination of an indefinite-term contract with notice are different institutions. A party’s statement that “I left for cause” or “I dismissed” does not by itself determine the characterization; health reports, payment records, workplace minutes, the conduct of the parties and the timeline are assessed.

Cause, valid reason, resignation and mutual termination are not the same act

Cause is a more serious ground that permits the employment relationship to end immediately (Labor Law Art. 24–25). Valid reason, on the other hand, refers to termination with notice by the employer in indefinite-term contracts covered by job security (iş güvencesi), connected with the employee’s competence or conduct or with the requirements of the enterprise, the workplace or the work (Labor Law Art. 18–21). In a termination for valid reason, as a rule the notice periods must be observed or pay in lieu of notice must be paid; the reinstatement and defense provisions must be assessed according to the specific case.

Resignation is the employee’s notification that they are leaving the employment relationship; whether it rests on a justified ground is examined separately. A “resignation” document prepared by the employer and signed by the employee may not, by itself, prove the genuine intention. A mutual termination agreement (ikale) is the parties’ ending of the employment contract by agreement; it requires a separate assessment, in particular as to who made the proposal, free will and a reasonable benefit for the employee. A mediation agreement is also examined separately under the regime of Law No. 6325; it cannot be treated directly as an ordinary release (ibraname).

Is a workplace size or seniority requirement needed for termination for cause?

As a rule, the arising of the right of immediate termination under Labor Law Art. 24–25 does not depend on the workplace having at least 30 employees or on the employee reaching six months of seniority. These thresholds essentially concern the job security/reinstatement conditions. By contrast, for a claim to severance pay to arise after termination for cause, at least one year of seniority and the other requirements under Article 14 of Labor Law No. 1475 are required, subject to the relevant special exceptions. Combination of service periods, transfer of the workplace and intermittent employment must be calculated with concrete records.

The employee’s right to terminate for cause on health grounds: Labor Law Art. 24/I

If the nature of the work endangers the employee’s health or well-being

Where a danger to the employee’s health or well-being arises for a reason stemming from the nature of the work performed, this is a ground for termination for cause under Labor Law Art. 24/I-a. Whether the danger is genuinely related to the work and working conditions is investigated through the workplace risk assessment, workplace physician records, hospital reports, occupational safety notifications and assignments. Not every health complaint is automatically a ground for termination for cause; the relationship between the medical finding, the working condition and the danger must be explained.

A panel report obtained from a fully equipped hospital is not the only mandatory means of proof in every specific case. What matters is the expertise of the document, its scope and its capacity to explain the medical problem in the case. It may be useful for evidence purposes for the employee to notify the danger they face in writing and to request that suitable conditions be provided; however, the right of immediate termination directly granted by the law cannot, in general, be reduced to an obligation to send a prior warning.

Illness of the employer or of another employee with whom one works closely

Where the employer, or another employee with whom the employee is continuously in close and direct contact, contracts a contagious disease or a disease incompatible with the employee’s work, this may be a ground for termination for cause under the special conditions of Art. 24/I-b. The nature of the disease, the conditions of contact, the protective measures that can be taken and the concrete effect on the employment relationship are assessed. Because health data is sensitive personal data, obtaining it and submitting it to the file should be limited to its purpose.

The employee’s termination for cause for breach of morality and good faith rules: Art. 24/II

Being misled about essential matters at hiring

Where the employer, when the contract is formed, presents characteristics, conditions or information contrary to the truth regarding the essential points of the work, this may give the employee the possibility of termination for cause under Art. 24/II-a. For the place of work, its nature, the working conditions, pay or occupational safety obligations, the effect of the false statement on the formation of the contract and its gravity are examined. A minor gap in information and intentional misleading about an essential term of the contract are not assessed with the same result.

Insult, violation of personality rights, sexual harassment and conduct constituting a crime

The employer’s words and conduct directed against the honor and dignity of the employee or the employee’s family members; sexual harassment of the employee; verbal or physical attacks (sataşma) on the employee or the employee’s family, inducing them to unlawful conduct or committing a crime; and making serious, unfounded accusations against the employee are addressed within the framework of Art. 24/II-b and c. Where the employee is sexually harassed at the workplace by another employee or a third party and notifies the employer, yet the necessary measures are not taken, this is regulated separately under Art. 24/II-d.

The employer’s duty of care is assessed together with TBK Article 417 (Turkish Code of Obligations, TBK). Where harassment, insult, threat or violation of personality rights is involved, workplace complaints, correspondence, witnesses, health records and lawfully obtained digital evidence should be preserved where necessary; for acts that give rise to a suspicion of a crime, the rights under criminal law must be examined separately. No generalization should be made that a prior notice requirement exists in every case or that no notice is ever required; the text of the relevant subparagraph and the specifics of the event are decisive.

Non-payment of wages, overtime or holiday entitlements

Failure to calculate wages in accordance with the law or the contract, or failure to pay them, may be a ground for termination for cause under Art. 24/II-e. This scope is not limited to bare monthly pay: overtime, national and public holidays, weekly rest day, bonuses and other receivables of the nature of wages whose statutory and contractual conditions have arisen may also matter in concrete circumstances. However, whether the receivable has actually arisen, the method of calculation, the payment due dates, the payrolls and the bank transactions are examined first.

In its decision of October 20, 2025, E.2025/6592, K.2025/8120, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dealt with a dispute involving partial payment of wages in cash, under-reporting of earnings subject to premiums, unpaid employment claims and employer conduct. The decision shows that wage/SGK records and the facts of termination must be assessed not only with formal documents but with all the data in the file.

SGK notifications that do not match actual work or pay

Under-reporting of the insured work period, showing earnings subject to premiums lower than the wage actually received, or claims of uninsured work may be important in the employee’s assessment of termination for cause. However, the existence of a payment outside the bank does not, on its own, produce the same result in every case; the effect of the payment in question on the actual wage and premium record is determined through payrolls and bank transactions, SGK service statements and the parties’ explanations. Where necessary, claims relating to determination of service periods/earnings subject to premiums may require procedures and parties different from an employment claims action.

Failure to apply the employee’s terms of employment and piece-rate pay

Where an employee paid by the piece or by the amount of work is given fewer jobs than they can perform, failure to make up the missing wages on a time basis, or failure to apply the working conditions, falls within Art. 24/II-f. The employment contract, job description, pay system, production records, shift schedule and workplace practice must be examined together. A unilateral worsening of pay or working arrangements is also important under the essential change and written acceptance regime in Labor Law Art. 22.

Termination for cause with respect to psychological harassment (mobbing) and the right to annual leave

The boundary between mobbing and an isolated workplace dispute

Psychological harassment is discussed as a set of systematic, continuing behaviors that create an effect of intimidation or exclusion at the workplace. Not every management criticism, heavy workload, isolated argument or unpleasant remark is mobbing in itself. However, even if an incident does not reach the level of mobbing, it may constitute a serious attack on the employee’s personality rights and may be assessed as an independent ground for termination for cause.

In its decision of November 20, 2024, E.2024/9538, K.2024/14973, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation affirmed the judgment dismissing the action in a case where systematic psychological harassment was not sufficiently proved. The dissenting opinion in the decision contains a different assessment as to the protection of personality rights and the employer’s duty of care. In the same dispute, an allegation not being treated as mobbing does not make it unnecessary to examine the specific facts asserted from the standpoint of another ground for termination for cause.

In proof, workplace e-mails, meeting correspondence, warnings, changes of duties, witness statements, health records and the chronology of events are important. It is not appropriate to disclose all private messages or health data without limit in order to present evidence. Under Art. 26, the starting date may differ for continuing acts and for completed isolated acts; a general rule cannot be formulated as though the six-business-day period never runs.

Failure to allow annual leave and leave pay

Annual paid leave is a right to rest that cannot be waived. During the continuation of the employment relationship, as a rule, the right to leave cannot be eliminated by paying money in place of leave; the receivable for pay for unused leave arises upon the termination of the contract (Labor Law Art. 59). A claim of termination for cause based on failure to allow leave is assessed together with the gravity of the breach and the working arrangements. The employer must prove with appropriate records that the leave was allowed; signed leave registers, leave request/approval records and the actual leave days are therefore important.

The employee’s termination for cause on grounds of force majeure: Art. 24/III

If a force majeure event occurs at the workplace where the employee works that requires work to stop for more than one week, immediate termination may come into question under Art. 24/III. It must be investigated whether the cause actually stops work at the workplace, whether it lasts more than one week and who bears the risk. The obligation to pay half wages during certain waiting periods under Labor Law Art. 40 may also be assessed separately. Economic hardship or a decrease in workload is not automatically force majeure in every case. It matters whether the employer’s not employing the employee stems from its own operational decision or from external force majeure conditions.

The employer’s right to terminate for cause on health grounds: Labor Law Art. 25/I

Illness connected with the employee’s fault and specific absence thresholds

Labor Law Art. 25/I-a regulates, under special conditions, absence caused by illness or disability arising from the employee’s own intent, disorderly way of life or addiction to drink that lasts more than three consecutive business days or more than five business days in a month. The cause of the health fact, the length of the absence and the connection to the employee’s fault must be proved concretely. Not every illness and not every medical report can be regarded as falling within this subparagraph.

Incurable illness and determination by a health board

The employee’s contracting an illness that is of an incurable nature, and a health board’s determination that continued work at the workplace is inappropriate, fall under Art. 25/I-b. In this special subparagraph, what matters is whether the medical finding and the inappropriateness of continued work are both present. In processing health data, the employer’s responsibilities regarding confidentiality, proportionality, the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability and reasonable workplace adjustments must also be observed.

Long-term absence arising from illness, accident, pregnancy and childbirth

For the other cases of illness, accident, childbirth and pregnancy under Art. 25/I, the general rule is that the notice period under Art. 17, determined by the employee’s seniority, is exceeded by six weeks. The notice periods are two weeks for less than six months of seniority, four weeks for six months up to one and a half years, six weeks for one and a half years up to three years, and eight weeks for more than three years. For example, for ordinary illness/sick-leave absence with more than three years of seniority, the relevant threshold is as a rule calculated as eight plus six weeks; statutory special cases and the reports used are taken into account separately.

The 2026 legislative change is important: Law No. 7578, which entered into force on May 1, 2026, raised maternity leave (analık izni) in Labor Law Art. 74 for a single pregnancy to a total of 24 weeks, eight weeks before and sixteen weeks after childbirth; for a multiple pregnancy, two weeks are added to the pre-birth period. In a termination connected with childbirth/pregnancy, the end of which protected leave period starts the period in Art. 25 must be calculated taking into account the provisions in force and the transitional provisions on the termination date. Taking the former 16-week leave as though it were in force in 2026 may lead to a loss of rights. Pregnancy or maternity leave alone does not constitute a ground for termination for cause.

The employer’s termination for cause for breach of morality and good faith rules: Art. 25/II

Misleading information at hiring, insult, harassment and attacks

The following are regulated under special conditions within Art. 25/II: the employee’s false statements at hiring about essential qualifications that influenced their recruitment; serious words and conduct directed against the honor of the employer or its family members; sexual harassment of another employee; verbal or physical attacks on the employer, its relatives or another employee; and coming to the workplace drunk or under the influence of drugs, or using them at the workplace. Finding a word rude, or every verbal argument between two people, is not automatically a ground for termination. The context of the act, the words directed at the parties, workplace discipline, any claim of provocation and the effect on the relationship of trust are investigated.

Abuse of trust, theft, workplace secrets and the duty of honesty

Under Art. 25/II-e, theft, abuse of trust, disclosure of professional secrets and similar conduct contrary to the duty of honesty/loyalty are examined. The fact that a criminal investigation has been started or that the employer has filed a criminal complaint does not, by itself, prove that the act occurred under labor law. Conversely, a criminal conviction is not a mandatory precondition in every case when the conditions for termination for cause are assessed under labor law. Whether the act actually took place, its connection to the employee and when it came to the employer’s knowledge must be established with evidence.

Committing a crime at the workplace, absence and insistence on not performing duties

The law regulates in separate subparagraphs the commission at the workplace of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than seven days and not deferred; absence without permission or just cause for two consecutive business days, twice in a month on the business day following any holiday, or three business days in a month; and insistence on not performing the duties despite a reminder. Which days are actually business days for the employee must be determined by the shift schedule and attendance records (puantaj). Days with a justified excuse or a medical report cannot be treated as unauthorized absence indiscriminately.

In its decision of October 20, 2025, E.2025/6862, K.2025/8073, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted that the employer’s termination was justified, assessing the specific dates of absence, the absence of a medical report and the minutes. The decision also contains a dissenting opinion with a different assessment on unpaid leave and the call to return to work. In an absence file, therefore, one must look not only at the absence record but at the whole of the leave, report and return-to-work arrangements.

Endangering work safety and the thirty-day wage criterion

Art. 25/II-ı regulates the employee’s endangering the safety of the work by their own wish or negligence, or causing damage or loss to goods and installations belonging to the workplace or in the employer’s hands to a degree that cannot be covered by thirty days’ wages. The sub-elements of creating danger and of material damage are not treated as the same. The attribution of the act to the employee, fault, the date of the event, the actual amount of the damage, the employee’s wage, any expert examination and safety records must be discussed. It cannot be concluded that termination without severance pay may automatically be carried out in every case of loss.

The employer’s termination on grounds of force majeure and police custody/pretrial detention

Force majeure preventing the employee from working under Art. 25/III

A force majeure in the employee’s personal sphere that keeps the employee from working at the workplace for more than one week is assessed under Art. 25/III. A general operational decision causing a halt of activity at the workplace and an external force majeure event arising in the employee’s own person must not be confused. The relationship between the waiting period and half wages in Labor Law Art. 40 is examined separately according to the effect of the event on the parties.

Police custody or pretrial detention under Art. 25/IV

Where the employee is taken into police custody or placed in pretrial detention, the absence must exceed the notice period in Labor Law Art. 17. The periods of two, four, six and eight weeks are therefore calculated according to the seniority bracket in the event; the day on which the period expires and the condition of its being exceeded must not be confused. Police custody or pretrial detention does not mean the employee is guilty. For the employer’s termination for cause, what matters is the period of inability to attend work separately regulated by the law.

How are the six-business-day and one-year preclusive periods calculated? Labor Law Art. 26

In which cases do the six business days apply?

The periods in Labor Law Art. 26 apply to cases of breach of morality and good faith rules under Art. 24/II and Art. 25/II. This provision does not apply automatically to health and force majeure grounds; for these, whether the relevant conditions have arisen and the principle of good faith are examined separately. The six-day period is not “six calendar days” but six business days, to be determined taking into account the workplace working arrangements and the nature of the days concerned. The day of learning of the event is not counted; counting starts from the following business days.

The absolute one-year limit and the material gain exception

Once one year has passed from the act, the power to terminate for cause generally cannot be exercised; however, the law does not apply the one-year period where the employee obtained a material gain from the event. This exception does not remove the six-business-day period running from learning of the event. The one-year period and the six-business-day period are preclusive in nature and may be taken into account by the court of its own motion. For an objection on time limits, the event and the learning of it must be established with separate documents.

The authority competent to terminate in a legal-entity employer and the effect of an investigation

Where the employer is a company, when the person or board competent to terminate learned of the event is important for the starting point. It cannot be said that in every workplace with a disciplinary board the period starts on the day the board meets. Internal regulations, the date the notification reached the competent body, the investigative steps taken and a reasonable period are examined together.

Decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated May 6, 2026

In its decision of May 6, 2026, E.2025/679, K.2026/303, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) did not accept that waiting for about three months after the employee’s defense was taken, without any concrete and documented investigative step, was a reasonable inquiry extending the period for termination for cause. Assessing together the six business days, the moment of learning, the disciplinary procedure and whether an investigation was in fact conducted, the Assembly concluded that the period had been missed and found the lower court’s decision to adhere to its earlier judgment (direnme kararı) appropriate. The employer’s defense that “the file was before the disciplinary board” is not sufficient on its own.

Continuing violation versus an act completed in the past

A continuing unlawfulness such as non-payment of wages and a single completed insult or theft allegation may not have the same starting point for the period. The 2026 decision of the Civil General Assembly also indicates that the calculation of the preclusive period may be assessed differently for as long as the conduct constituting the ground for termination for cause continues. However, a claim of continuing conduct should not be left abstract; it should be shown by the dates of the last violation, payment or warning.

How should the notice of termination be given and when should the defense be taken?

Stating the ground for termination clearly, specifically and consistently

In a declaration of termination for cause, explaining as far as possible the reason for which the contract is ended and the underlying events with the date, place, act and the relevant subparagraph of the law provides evidentiary security. It must be proved that the notice reached the other party. A notary’s notice (ihtarname) or secure electronic notification is not an absolute condition of validity in every termination for cause; but it can reduce disputes over service and ground. The SGK exit code used by the employer is not conclusive evidence replacing the intent to terminate and the facts that actually occurred.

The employee’s defense: valid reason versus Art. 25/II

Labor Law Art. 19 contains the conditions for taking a defense in a termination for valid reason relating to the employee’s conduct or performance under job security. In an immediate termination for cause under Art. 25/II, the defense obligation provided for in the same article is not applied as a condition of validity in every case. Nevertheless, taking a defense may be important to establish the accuracy of the event, circumstances in the employee’s favor and the calculation of the period; a collective labor agreement (TİS), internal workplace regulations or a special employer procedure may separately impose an obligation. The effect of not taking a defense varies according to the type of termination and the specific regulation.

Resignation letter and reservation of rights in termination for cause by the employee

When notifying their intention to terminate for cause, the employee should, instead of a vague text such as “I am leaving for personal reasons”, explain, if genuinely present, for example the unpaid wage periods or the unlawful working conditions. A resignation, mutual termination or release document that an employee claims to have signed under pressure is assessed separately in terms of signature, date, bank payment, witnesses and defects of will. The employee’s not listing all of their claims one by one in the termination letter does not mean they are automatically lost; however, a clear and consistent record is useful for proving the ground for termination.

Legal consequences of termination for cause for severance pay, notice pay and other claims

In which cases does severance pay arise?

Article 14 of Law No. 1475, kept in force by Article 120 of Labor Law No. 4857, is the basic source of severance pay (kıdem tazminatı). In general, an employee with at least one year of seniority may claim severance pay where they terminate for cause under Art. 24. Severance pay may also come into question in the employer’s termination for cause other than under Art. 25/II, if the other conditions are met. However, severance pay does not arise where the employer’s termination for cause under Art. 25/II is genuinely justified. This distinction is a critical point often confused in older writings.

In calculating severance, the gross amount of the wage, regular money or benefits measurable in money, the length of service, the transfer of the workplace and the severance pay ceiling applicable at the date of termination are examined. Because the ceiling may change from year to year or within a year, no fixed monetary amount is used in this guide. Determining one year of seniority does not consist merely of the number of consecutive uninterrupted payrolls.

Why does notice pay generally not arise?

In an immediate termination for cause, since the terminating party is not required to observe the notice period, notice pay (ihbar tazminatı) does not, as a rule, arise within termination for cause. The employee’s termination for cause under Art. 24 does not give the employee the right to notice pay. The employer’s termination for cause under Art. 25 likewise does not give rise to notice pay merely because it is an immediate termination. However, if the ground relied on is found not to be justified, notice pay may come into question in favor of the employee in a termination by the employer, and in favor of the employer in the employee’s unjustified departure without notice; the contract and the reinstatement conditions are reserved.

Wages, leave, overtime and other claims arising from employment

Whatever the form of termination, the employee’s wages actually earned and unpaid, claims for overtime, weekly rest day, national and public holidays whose conditions have arisen, and pay for unused annual leave arising on termination are not eliminated merely because of termination for cause. The employer may separately assert any loss caused by the employee and counterclaims whose statutory conditions have arisen; it cannot reduce all claims arising from employment to zero by unilateral deduction. A claim of payment is checked against bank receipts, wage slips and appropriate payrolls.

Comparison by type of termination

The table is not a calculation schedule. A collective labor agreement, the type of employment contract, length of service, a special law, the outcome of reinstatement and the specific ground for termination may change the numerical result.

How is the right to reinstatement assessed in termination for cause?

The main conditions of job security

Under Labor Law Art. 18, conditions such as, in general, at least 30 employees, at least six months of seniority, an indefinite-term employment contract and the exceptions for employer’s representatives who manage the whole enterprise are important. The special exceptions provided by law for the six-month seniority (for example, underground work) and the calculation of the number of employees across workplaces in the same branch of activity should also be reviewed. If job security does not apply, reinstatement cannot be requested against termination in every case, and claims arising from employment and rights to compensation may nevertheless continue.

Does the employer’s Art. 25/II allegation automatically prevent reinstatement?

No. An employee covered by job security may argue that the employer’s allegation of cause does not carry the statutory elements. The court may also assess, within the legal characterization and the claims, whether the specific event could at least be regarded as a valid reason. Failure to prove cause does not automatically result in reinstatement in every case; job security, the gravity of the ground for termination, procedural rules and evidence are examined together.

Time limits for the reinstatement application and after the decision

Mediation must be applied for within one month of service of the notice of termination. If no agreement is reached, a lawsuit must be filed in the labor court within two weeks of the date the final report is drawn up (Labor Law Art. 20, Law No. 7036 Art. 3). Once the reinstatement judgment becomes final, the employee must apply to the employer within ten business days of service of the final judgment. The employer has one month to reinstate the employee on application. Compensation for non-reinstatement is, as a rule, four to eight months’ wages; wages for the idle period and other rights are determined for a period of at most four months. The details of the claim, payment and set-off vary according to the judgment and the actual reinstatement situation.

What do unemployment benefit and the SGK exit notification mean in termination for cause?

For unemployment benefit, the ground for termination, the premium and service conditions and the application period under Law No. 4447 are required together. According to the current official statement of the Turkish Employment Agency (İŞKUR), the general conditions include at least 600 days of unemployment insurance premiums in the last three years, having a premium relationship in the last 120 days before termination, and applying within 30 days from the day following termination. The employee’s claim that they terminated for cause under Art. 24 does not mean that the benefit will be granted automatically. The exit code notified to İŞKUR, the parties’ statements, employment dispute documents and, where necessary, court decisions are assessed together. That the exit code is wrong is not a reason for not observing the time limits; correction and application routes should be planned separately to protect rights.

Proving termination for cause: which evidence matters in the file?

The burden of proof is not the same for every allegation

The party that terminates bears a significant burden of proof as to the cause it relies on; but in every claim arising from employment the whole burden of proof is not automatically placed on one side. Different evidentiary rules apply to the defense of payment of wages (payment documents), to the employee’s overtime allegation (the fact of work), to annual leave allowed (leave records) and to the employer’s claim of valid/just termination (the events on which the termination is based). HMK Article 190 (Code of Civil Procedure, HMK), the special provisions of the Labor Law and the practice of the Court of Cassation are assessed together.

Purpose of use of evidence and risks to watch

Camera and digital records

Camera recordings, corporate messages, access logs or social media posts are assessed only with regard to lawful acquisition, limitation to purpose, integrity, matching to the person and context. Publishing the private conversations or health information of unrelated persons may exceed the need for proof. The system in which the records are kept, the retention period and, if alteration is possible, an application to the court for the preservation of evidence or for the records to be produced may come into question where necessary.

Mediation, litigation, statute of limitations and preclusive periods

Scope of mediation as a condition precedent to litigation

Under Article 3 of Labor Courts Law No. 7036, mediation as a condition precedent to litigation (dava şartı arabuluculuk) applies, as a rule, to claims and compensation arising from the employment relationship between employee and employer, and to reinstatement. The statutory exception must be observed for material and non-material compensation arising from a work accident or occupational disease and the related declaratory, objection and recourse actions. With the 2023 amendment, certain claims for cancellation of an objection, negative declaratory relief and restitution concerning employee/employer claims and compensation were also brought within the scope. The competent mediation office, the parties to the application and the subject of the claim must be determined carefully.

The mediator, in general, concludes the file within three weeks from the date of appointment; in compulsory cases the period may be extended by at most one week. This processing period does not replace the employee’s obligation to apply within one month for reinstatement. The effect on the possibility of a later lawsuit of what is agreed in mediation is assessed together with the validity and scope of the agreement.

The five-year statute of limitations and the six-business-day preclusive period are different

Under Supplementary Article 3 of the Labor Law, a five-year statute of limitations is provided for severance pay arising from the employment contract, notice pay, compensation for termination in bad faith and in breach of the principle of equal treatment, and pay for unused annual leave; the transitional provisions of Provisional Article 8 for past periods must be examined separately. For wage claims arising from employment, a separate calculation is made on the basis of the type of claim and its due date; the starting point of each claim is not the termination date. The effect of an application to mediation on the statutes of limitations/preclusive periods is taken into account within the framework of Law No. 7036 Art. 3.

In contrast, the six business days and one year in Labor Law Art. 26 are the period for exercising the power to terminate for cause. The two different time-limit regimes cannot be substituted for each other in a single schedule.

Critical time-limit table

Practical guide before termination for employees and employers

Preparing documents and claims on the employee’s side

1. Identify the real ground for termination: make concrete which statutory group it falls under, such as a health danger, a wage/SGK violation, harassment, a working condition or force majeure.
2. Collect documents: the employment contract, wage payroll, bank receipts, SGK records, attendance records, workplace messages, health and leave documents and any earlier notifications.
3. Notify the intention to terminate in an understandable way: state the date, the relevant events and the violation relied on clearly; check the Art. 26 period, in particular for Art. 24/II.
4. Separate the claims: list separately the conditions for severance, unused annual leave, wages, overtime, other rights and any non-material/material compensation.
5. Track the reinstatement, unemployment and litigation periods separately: an employee’s termination for cause and an objection to the employer’s termination give rise to different applications and consequences.

Review for the employer and human resources

1. Establish the facts: distinguish between a report or suspicion and proven conduct; collect camera, attendance, minutes, job description and witness records on the date of the event.
2. Record the authority competent to terminate and the date of learning: apply the reasonable-investigation standard in the 2026 Civil General Assembly decision; do not leave the process waiting without documentation.
3. Review the statutory subparagraph and the severe sanction: the legal regimes of Art. 25/II and of termination for valid reason, a warning, a change of duties or another measure differ. If a lighter measure was possible in the specific case, discuss why it was insufficient.
4. Check the defense, service and internal procedure: determine whether Art. 19, the collective labor agreement and disciplinary regulations apply to the specific action.
5. Prepare the exit and payment records consistently: do not create contradictions among the termination letter, the SGK notification, the severance/notice assessment, the leave pay and the payroll documents.

The right distinctions in example disputes

Non-payment of wages: If the employee has genuinely earned the wage and no payment was made, Art. 24/II-e may come into play. The employer may defend with a bank record that payment was made; the calculation of the dispute and its timing are examined separately.

Failure to come to work: If the employee has reached the number of days in the law without an excuse, Art. 25/II-g may come into play. But the result changes if there is approved leave, a medical report or an irregular call to return to work.

Fight at the workplace: Insults and attacks may be a serious breach of trust; without investigating whom the words were addressed to, the context of the event, the witnesses’ accounts, the camera recording and the preclusive period, a result of automatic termination without severance pay cannot be reached.

Disciplinary investigation: A documented inquiry genuinely conducted by the board competent to terminate is not the same as waiting for months without producing records. The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, 2026/303, shows that the period must not be extended for purposes other than its aim.

Related articles: Does Failure to Allow Radiation Leave (Şua İzni) Give the Employee the Right to Terminate for Cause?; Dismissal Because of a Social Media Post and the Employee’s Freedom of Expression; Employment Rights of Yacht Captains and Crew: Disputes over Wages, Termination and Compensation; Statutes of Limitations and Preclusive Periods: How Is the Time Limit for Bringing an Action Determined?.

Conclusion

In termination for cause, the decisive element is not the wording used in the termination letter but the arising of the statutory ground, proof of the fact, exercise of the right within time and the correct characterization of the type of termination. While the employee’s termination for cause may give rise to severance pay, the employer’s termination for cause under Art. 25/II does not, as a rule, lead to severance or notice pay; other wage and leave claims are not eliminated. The six-business-day preclusive period and the mediation, reinstatement and limitation periods must be tracked independently of one another. Relying on the wrong ground by the employee or the employer, incomplete minutes, unproven health/work allegations or an erroneous payment record after termination may change the outcome of the dispute. A joint legal assessment of the events and documents before the termination is carried out and before the action/application period expires is the main way to prevent loss of rights.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is termination for cause?

It is the ending of the employment contract without waiting for the notice period, for a statutory ground that makes the continuation of the contract unreasonable to expect under the principle of good faith. Labor Law Art. 24 applies to the employee and Art. 25 to the employer; the fact relied on must also be proved.

Does an employee who resigns for cause receive severance pay?

If the employee has at least one year of seniority and the other conditions of Law No. 1475 Art. 14 are met, an employee who genuinely terminates for cause under Art. 24 may claim severance pay. What is decisive is not the word “resignation” used in the letter but the actual ground for termination and the evidence.

Does an employee who terminates for cause receive notice pay?

As a rule, no. Because the notice period does not apply in an immediate termination for cause, the employee, as the terminating party, does not obtain notice pay. If cause cannot be proved, the employer’s claim for notice pay may come into question.

Can an employee receive severance pay if the employer dismisses for cause?

It depends on the subparagraph of termination. Where the termination for cause under Labor Law Art. 25/II is genuinely justified, severance pay does not, as a rule, arise. Under Art. 25/I, III or IV, severance pay may come into question if at least one year and the other seniority conditions are met.

When does the six-business-day termination period start?

For Art. 24/II and 25/II, it is calculated from the business days following the learning of the other party’s act and of the person responsible. In a legal-entity employer, the learning of the authority competent to terminate and the necessity and length of the investigation are examined separately; the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation of May 6, 2026, E.2025/679, K.2026/303 is important.

Does the six-business-day period apply to all grounds for termination for cause?

No. This period in Labor Law Art. 26 relates to the group of breaches of morality and good faith rules in Art. 24/II and Art. 25/II. For health and force majeure grounds, their own statutory conditions and the principle of good faith are assessed.

Is late or incomplete payment of wages a ground for termination for cause?

Yes. Failure to calculate the employee’s wages in accordance with the law or the contract, or failure to pay them, may constitute cause under Art. 24/II-e. The due date of the wage, the unpaid amount, bank/payroll records and any continuity are important.

Is under-reporting of SGK premiums a ground for termination for cause?

Under-reporting of actual wages or of the insured work period may support termination for cause. However, the shortfall must be established through bank, payroll, service statement and actual work records; an allegation of under-reporting cannot be accepted as verified on its own.

Can the employer terminate immediately if the employee fails to come to work for two days?

For Labor Law Art. 25/II-g, absence for two consecutive business days must have occurred without permission and without just excuse. There are also other absence thresholds. If there is approved leave or a medical report, there is no automatic termination for cause; shift and business-day records are examined.

Can an argument and insults at the workplace be a ground for immediate termination?

It may be, depending on the gravity of the act. The content of the words said, whom they were directed at, provocation, workplace order and the evidence are important. Not every rude word or argument is automatically a ground for termination without severance pay.

What rights can an employee who leaves because of mobbing claim?

If systematic psychological harassment or a violation of personality rights constituting an independent cause is proved, severance pay and other claims may come into question if the conditions are met. For claims of material/non-material compensation, legal conditions are separately required.

Can an employee who has obtained a medical report be dismissed for cause?

No, merely because there is a medical report. The special illness conditions in Labor Law Art. 25/I and, where necessary, the regime of adding six weeks to the notice period are examined. For pregnancy/maternity, the 24-week leave updated in 2026 must be taken into account.

Is it mandatory to take the employee’s defense in termination for cause?

The defense regime of Labor Law Art. 19 for a termination for valid reason based on conduct/performance is not the same as termination for cause under Art. 25/II. However, internal workplace arrangements, the collective labor agreement and specific procedural conditions may impose an obligation separately; taking a defense is useful for evidentiary security.

Can an employee who leaves for cause receive unemployment pay?

Not automatically. İŞKUR assesses together the ground for termination under Law No. 4447, the premium days, the last-120-days condition and the 30-day application period. The SGK exit code and, where necessary, the outcome of the dispute are important.

Within how many days must one apply for reinstatement?

A mediation application within one month of service of the notice of termination, and, if no agreement is reached, a lawsuit within two weeks of the final report. The scope of job security is also required.

How long does mediation take?

Under the general regime of Law No. 7036, the mediator concludes the file within three weeks of the appointment; in compulsory cases may extend it by at most one week. This period must not be confused with the periods for a lawsuit or an application.

What is the statute of limitations for severance and notice pay?

As a rule five years, under Labor Law Supplementary Article 3. The arising of the claim, the termination date and the transitional provisions for the period before 2017 are examined separately. This period is different from the six-business-day period of the power to terminate in Art. 26.

Does a signed release automatically extinguish claims arising from employment?

No. TBK Article 420 subjects a release concerning the employee’s claims against the employer to strict validity conditions. The form, at least one month after termination, the item/amount of the claim and complete payment through a bank must be examined. Actual bank payments and the receipt value of an invalid document are assessed separately.

If SGK shows that the employee left of their own will, can they not bring an action?

They can; but they must support the claim of termination for cause, or of an actual termination by the employer, with concrete evidence. The SGK exit code alone is not conclusive as to justification or loss of rights.

What happens if the employer notified the termination to SGK with the wrong code?

The employer’s written statement of termination, the events that actually occurred and the notified code are compared with each other. A code discrepancy may affect the unemployment application and claims arising from employment; administrative and, if necessary, judicial routes are considered for correction.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation and official statements

• Labor Law No. 4857, in particular Articles 2, 17–22, 24–26, 32, 34, 40, 59, 74, 120 and Supplementary Article 3; for the text in force, Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi), Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) law record.
• Labor Law No. 1475, Article 14 (the severance pay provision in force under Article 120 of Law No. 4857); Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi).
• Labor Courts Law No. 7036, Article 3; Ministry of Justice/UYAP Legislation (Adalet Bakanlığı/UYAP Mevzuat).
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Articles 417, 420, 435; Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi).
• Unemployment Insurance Law No. 4447 and Ministry of Labor and Social Security (Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı) — İŞKUR FAQ.
• Law No. 7578, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) No. 33240 dated May 1, 2026; also the Ministry of Labor and Social Security statement.
• Ministry of Labor and Social Security — Labor Law No. 4857 Frequently Asked Questions (İş Kanunu Sıkça Sorulan Sorular); official statements.

Court of Cassation decisions

• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), May 6, 2026, E.2025/679, K.2026/303 — starting point of the Art. 26 period, disciplinary investigation, reasonable time and the approval of the decision to adhere to the earlier judgment.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), October 20, 2025, E.2025/6592, K.2025/8120 — wages, SGK records and the employee’s claims of termination for cause.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, October 20, 2025, E.2025/6862, K.2025/8073 — assessments of absence, medical report and unpaid leave, and the dissenting opinion.
• 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, November 20, 2024, E.2024/9538, K.2024/14973 — allegation of psychological harassment, personality rights, proof and the dissenting opinion.