In reinstatement lawsuits, it is not sufficient for an employer merely to assert that valid grounds for termination existed. How those grounds were communicated to the employee at the time of termination is also subject to judicial review. As a rule, the employer is bound by the factual grounds stated in the notice of termination and cannot render the termination valid by introducing a different incident during the proceedings. A different legal characterisation of the same incident by the court must, however, be considered separately.
Valid Grounds And The Function Of The Notice Of Termination
Under Article 18 of Labour Law No. 4857, an employer terminating the indefinite-term employment contract of an employee covered by employment protection must rely on valid grounds arising from the employee’s capability or conduct, or from the operational requirements of the undertaking, workplace or work. Valid grounds need not be sufficiently serious to justify immediate termination for just cause. They must, however, have a concrete basis that makes it unreasonable to expect the employer to continue the employment relationship.
Article 19 of Labour Law No. 4857 requires the notice of termination to be issued in writing and the grounds to be stated clearly and precisely. This requirement enables the employee to understand the factual allegations against which they must defend themselves and allows the court to review the termination. Merely using expressions such as “as deemed necessary” or “your services are no longer required” does not fulfil the obligation to explain the specific grounds for termination. Under Article 20 of Labour Law No. 4857, the burden of proving valid grounds rests with the employer, who must also demonstrate compliance with the applicable procedural requirements.
Can Different Grounds For Termination Be Relied Upon During The Proceedings?
The employer’s obligation to adhere to the stated grounds prevents the factual reason communicated at the time of termination from being replaced or supplemented with new grounds during the proceedings. An employer who initially relied on operational restructuring exceeds this limit by subsequently presenting the employee’s performance or disciplinary issues as the actual grounds for termination in a reinstatement lawsuit. A failure to prove the stated grounds cannot be remedied by introducing a different incident into the case.
The dispute considered in the judgment of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21 February 2019, Case No. 2018/6557, Decision No. 2019/4426, illustrates this situation. While the employer’s notice of termination relied on the restructuring of customer operations, the statement of defence argued that the employee’s frequent periods of sick leave had disrupted services. In that case, which also addressed the employer’s inability to change the stated grounds subsequently, the reinstatement outcome was upheld; the judgment was affirmed following correction of an error in the compensation calculation.
The judgment of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 13 January 2026, Case No. 2025/10203, Decision No. 2026/84, likewise considered the introduction during proceedings of grounds not stated in the notice of termination and the failure to specify concrete grounds in that notice. The judgment also emphasised that events occurring after the termination date could not be relied upon to justify the termination.
The Boundary Between New Evidence And New Grounds For Termination
The obligation to adhere to the stated grounds does not prevent the employer from substantiating the notified incident with evidence. For example, proving conduct said to have occurred on a particular date through witness testimony or workplace records differs from relying on other conduct not mentioned in the notice of termination. The former concerns proof of existing grounds; the latter involves changing the grounds for termination. The rules governing the timely and procedurally proper submission of evidence apply separately.
In identifying this boundary, it is necessary to examine whether a subsequent explanation provides details of an incident that the employee could understand at the time of termination or instead introduces a new factual basis for the termination. This must be distinguished from retrospectively attempting, through pleadings, to remedy an initially abstract notice that did not identify any concrete incident.
A Different Legal Characterisation Of The Same Incident
The factual grounds by which the employer is bound must be distinguished from the legal label the employer assigns to them. Under Article 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, legal characterisation is a matter for the judge. A court’s finding that the same conduct regarded by the employer as just cause constitutes only valid grounds does not, by itself, amount to the creation of new grounds for termination.
In its judgment dated 27 May 2019, Case No. 2019/230, Decision No. 2019/12192, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation found that the conduct notified to the employee and on which the employee had been given an opportunity to respond was not sufficiently serious to justify termination for just cause. Nevertheless, the conduct was held to constitute valid grounds because of its adverse effects in the workplace, and the reinstatement claim was rejected. Accordingly, a failure to establish just cause does not invariably require reinstatement. However, legal characterisation does not automatically remedy an inadequate notice or deficiencies in the required process for obtaining the employee’s response; the procedural requirements applicable to the particular termination must be assessed separately.
The Framework For Reviewing A Termination
The examination of a reinstatement dispute should begin with the specific content of the notice of termination. The next steps are to assess proof of the notified facts, whether those facts constitute valid grounds, and compliance with the necessary procedural requirements. In terminations based on operational grounds, the consistent implementation of the relevant decision and the principle of termination as a last resort also form part of this assessment. For the employer, the decisive consideration is to set out the grounds accurately and concretely at the time of termination rather than develop them during litigation. For the employee, identifying discrepancies between the notified grounds and the employer’s defence during the proceedings enables the dispute to be assessed properly.
In reinstatement disputes, the content of the notice of termination, the documents relied upon by the employer and the procedure followed during the termination process should be assessed together. As the circumstances of each case differ, legal assessment is important to safeguard rights and comply with applicable time limits. For information about our services concerning the assessment of employment law disputes, legal advice and the conduct of litigation, please contact us.