Sicil, 2019/II Sayi 42: Sayfa 195-107
Prof. Dr. Serkan ODAMAN
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi, Çalisma Ekonomisi ve Endüstri Iliskileri Bölümü, Is ve
Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku Anabilim Dali
Isçinin is görme borcunu yerine getirirken yeterli olmasi çalisma iliskisinde dogrudan etkilidir. Bu nedenle de isçinin yetersizliginin bir hali olan sagligina iliskin is mevzuatinda bir çok hükmün düzenlendigi görülmektedir. Isçinin saglik sorunlari nedeniyle ortaya çikan fiziki yetersizligi is sözlesmesinin feshi bakimindan geçerli bir neden olusturabilecegi gibi hakli neden de olusturabilir. Incelemeye konu Yargitay Içtihadi Birlestirme Hukuk Genel Kurulu kararinda da is sözlesmesinin saglik sebebinden kaynakli isveren tarafindan hakli nedenle feshine iliskin bir degerlendirme yapilmaktadir. Yargitay 22. Hukuk Dairesi ile 9. Hukuk Dairesi isçinin is sözlesmesinin hakli neden olarak saglik sebebiyle isveren tarafindan feshinde farkli kararlara yer vermistir. Yargitay 22. Hukuk Dairesi kararlarinda isçinin is sözlesmesinin saglik nedenleriyle isveren tarafindan feshinde isçiden savunma alinmasinin gerekli olmadigina yer vermekteyken; Yargitay 9. Hukuk Dairesi ayni durum için fesihten önce isçiden savunma alinmamis olmasinin feshi haksiz kilacagi sekilde kararlar vermistir. Ayni nitelikteki hukuki konuda bir birine aykiri iki farkli kararin söz konusu olmasi adalet duygusunu sarsacagindan kararlar içtihadin birlestirilmesine konu olmustur. Yargitay Içtihadi Birlestirme Kararinda ise saglik sebebiyle isçinin is sözlesmesinin isveren tarafindan hakli nedenle feshinde savunma almanin zorunlu olmadigi yönünde karar verilmistir. Çalismayla söz konusu içtihadi birlestirme kararinin mevzuat dikkate alinarak incelenmesi ve isçinin saglik durumunun is sözlesmesinin feshindeki etkisinin belirlenmesi hedeflenmistir. Bu kapsamda degerlendirme yapilirken mevzuat, Dünya Saglik Örgütü’nün tanimlari, ögreti görüsleri ile Yargitay kararlarindan yararlanilarak karisikliga temel olusturan Is Kanunu’nun 19. maddesinin ikinci fikrasi ile 25. maddesinin son fikrasi ayrintili olarak ele alinmistir.
İş sözleşmesinin feshi, yetersizlik, işçinin sağlığı haklı neden, işçiden savunma alınması.
An employee’s competence to fulfil his/her duty to perform work has a direct impact in the employment relationship. For this reason, the labour legislation stipulates a number of provisions regarding the health of employees, which is a form of an employee’s incompetence. Physical incompetence of employees arising from their health problems may constitute a valid cause or just cause in terms of the termination of their employment contract. The decision of the Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of the Unification of Judgments, which is analysed in this study, also makes an evaluation on the termination of an employment contract by the employer for just cause due to health reasons. The 22nd Civil Chamber and the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation have rendered different decisions on the termination of an employment contract by the employer for just cause due to health reasons. The 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has ruled that taking the defence statement of the employee in case of termination of the employment contract by the employer for health reasons is not necessary, whereas the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has decided for the same situation that failure to take the defence statement of the employee before the termination will make the termination unjust. Considering that the presence of two different and contrary decisions on a legal issue of the same nature will harm the sense of justice, the decisions have been put through the process of unification of judgements. In the Court of Cassation’s Decision of Joint Chambers, it has been ruled that it is not necessary to take the defence statement of the employee in case of termination of the employment contract by the employer for just cause due to health reasons. This study aims to examine the mentioned decision of joint chambers in the light of the legislation and to identify the impact of the employee’s health status on the termination of the employment contract. In this context, the second paragraph of article 19 and the last paragraph of article 25 of the Labour Law, which have been causing this complexity, have been analysed in detail on the basis of the legislation, the definitions by the World Health Organization, the opinions in the doctrine and the decisions of the Court of Cassation.
Termination of employment contract, incompetence, employee’s health, just cause, taking employee’s defence statement.