Under Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 Art. 24/I-(a) (health risks arising from work) and Art. 24/II-(e) (non-fulfillment of essential working conditions by the employer), an employee possesses the statutory right to immediately terminate the employment contract with just cause and claim full severance pay (kıdem tazminatı).

1. Unilateral Job Duty Modification Beyond Contractual Scope

Deploying an employee hired specifically as a cashier into heavy warehouse work or manual loading without written consent constitutes a substantial alteration of employment conditions under Art. 22 of Labor Law No. 4857. Coercing an employee into physically harmful tasks despite health objections constitutes workplace mobbing under Turkish employment jurisprudence.

2. Legal Impact of Medical Board Reports on Immediate Resignation

When an employee submits an official hospital medical board report stating that heavy lifting or prolonged standing poses severe health hazards, the employer is legally obligated to adjust working conditions. Failure to accommodate medical restrictions entitles the worker to resign immediately under Art. 24/I-(a) and recover statutory severance pay.

3. Evidentiary Weight of Active Employee Witness Testimony

In Turkish labor litigation, witness testimony is crucial for proving overtime and weekend work. As reaffirmed in Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber Decision No. 2026/3281, statements from active employees currently working for the defendant employer carry low credibility due to potential employer pressure. Courts give preference to independent former colleagues and official Social Security (SGK) records.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is assigning an employee heavy tasks outside their job description a valid reason for immediate resignation?

Yes. Unilaterally forcing an employee into heavy labor contrary to their contractual job description without written consent constitutes a substantial alteration of employment conditions under Art. 22 and Art. 24/II-(e) of Labor Law No. 4857, granting just cause for resignation.

Can an employee claim severance pay if the employer ignores medical report recommendations?

Yes. If an employer fails to reassign an employee to suitable lighter duties despite official medical board recommendations, the employee may terminate the employment contract for just cause under Art. 24/I-(a) and claim full severance pay.

How do Turkish courts evaluate testimony from witnesses currently employed by the defendant company?

Under Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber precedents, statements from active employees of the defendant employer are considered potentially biased due to employer influence. Courts accord superior evidentiary weight to independent, former employees.

Binding Yargıtay Precedent Ruling

Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber Precedent Ruling

Merits: 2026/466, Decision: 2026/3281 (Date: 16.04.2026)

Summary: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the Regional Court of Appeal's judgment recognising the employee's just-cause termination and severance entitlement. The just cause rested on Labour Act art. 24/II-(e) (non-payment of overtime and weekly rest pay) and art. 24/I-(a) (work posing a danger to the employee's health). The court also endorsed treating the testimony of witnesses still employed by the defendant as of questionable impartiality. Mobbing appears as an allegation in the employee's notice of termination; it is not an independent ground of the judgment.

"[…] the plaintiff terminated the employment contract with just cause pursuant to article 24/II-(e) of Labour Act no. 4857, on the ground of “failure to pay overtime and weekly rest pay in accordance with the provisions of the law”, and pursuant to article 24/I-(a), on the ground that “the performance of the work forming the subject of the employment contract poses, for reasons inherent in the nature of the work, a danger to the health or life of the employee”, and thereby became entitled to severance pay […]" (from the first-instance reasoning UPHELD by the Court of Cassation)

"[…] since the witnesses put forward by the defendant were, as at the date they were heard, still working for the defendant employer and were therefore likely to be under the employer's influence, the impartiality of their statements was doubtful; accordingly no error was found in disregarding the defendant's witness statements where they conflicted with those of the plaintiff's witnesses […]" (from the Regional Court of Appeal reasoning UPHELD by the Court of Cassation)

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)

For expert advice regarding workplace harassment, constructive dismissal, and severance recovery under Turkish Labor Law, contact our specialized Labor Law attorneys or visit our Contact Us page.