{"id":3496,"date":"2026-04-16T14:24:57","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T11:24:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/?p=3496"},"modified":"2026-04-16T14:24:57","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T11:24:57","slug":"substantial-change-in-working-conditions-and-employers-termination-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/substantial-change-in-working-conditions-and-employers-termination-right\/","title":{"rendered":"SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS AND EMPLOYER’S TERMINATION RIGHT"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Nazif KARATA\u015e<\/strong>, Labor Law Partner<\/td>Hilal ESENBAY<\/strong>, Trainee Lawyer<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

KEYWORDS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Substantial Change, Employee Consent, Working Conditions<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The needs that arise over time in employment relationships bring to the agenda the possibility of the employer making changes in working conditions. However, when these changes affect the essential elements of the employment contract, it will not be possible to evaluate them within the scope of management rights. Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857 aims to protect both the employee and the employer by determining the procedures and limits of substantial changes to be made by the employer. The concept of substantial change and the termination process that arises in case the employee does not approve these changes must be examined separately in light of legislation, doctrinal views and Court of Cassation decisions, and particularly within the scope of valid termination control, the principles of appropriateness, consistency, arbitrariness, necessity, proportionality, termination as a last resort, and social selection. In this context, the delicate balance between the employer’s freedom of decision-making and the employee’s right to work must be preserved. Consequently, in substantial changes in working conditions and related termination procedures, it is not sufficient to comply only with the legal framework; the employer’s obligation of good faith, proportionality, and obligations to protect the employee’s rights must also be taken into account. Thus, balance can be achieved between both the employer’s operational needs and the employee’s legal security in employment relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dynamic structure of working relationships by their nature obliges employers to periodically re-evaluate the conditions related to the execution of work and make changes they deem necessary. However, when these evaluations and changes are of a nature that will create substantial differences in working conditions secured by the employment contract that forms the basis of the employee-employer relationship, they will not be evaluated solely within the scope of the employer’s management rights. Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857 comes into play at this point, drawing the framework that determines the limits of the concept of substantial change and the legality of these changes. In this study, the concept of substantial change in working conditions is examined from both employee and employer perspectives, and the conditions under which the employer can realize such changes in accordance with current legislation and the valid reason control to be applied in case of termination of the employment contract are examined in detail. Analyses made especially through criteria developed in light of Court of Cassation precedents aim to draw attention to the preservation of the delicate balance between the employer’s intention to make changes and the employee’s right to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. LEGAL REGULATIONS ON THE SUBJECT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this section, the provisions on substantial change in Labor Laws No. 3008, 931, 1475, and finally the currently effective Labor Law No. 4857 will be examined in historical order. The first labor law of our Republican history is Labor Law No. 3008, accepted on June 8, 1936. Substantial change did not take place as a separate article provision in our first Labor Law No. 3008 and is found as a paragraph within Article 15, which regulates the general reasons for which the employee may terminate the employment contract, as we will quote below: “Article 15: Whether fixed-term or not, in continuous employment contracts, the employee has the right to terminate the contract immediately, before the expiration of the term or without waiting for the notice period, in the following cases, if they wish: \u2026 e) If the wage is agreed to be paid per piece or based on work quantity, and the employer gives less work than the number or quantity the worker can do, and this deficiency is not compensated by extra work on another day, or if working conditions are substantially modified, altered or not applied (provided that there is no other provision in the contract regarding the cases in this paragraph)\u2026” As understood from the article text, “substantial modification of working conditions,” that is, substantial change, was regulated as a ground for termination for the employee; however, no other detailed regulation was made. The labor law following Labor Law No. 3008 is our Labor Law No. 931, accepted on July 28, 1967. In this Law, parallel to the first Labor Law No. 3008, no independent article was allocated to substantial change, and the substantial change regulation was included in Article 16, titled “Employee’s Right to Terminate Without Notice,” which we quote below: “Article 16: Whether fixed-term or not, in continuous service contracts, the employee may terminate the contract before the expiration of the term or without waiting for the notice period, if they wish, in the following cases\u2026 e) If it is agreed that the wage will be paid per piece or based on work quantity, but the employer gives less work than the number and quantity the employee can do, and the wage difference is not paid on a time basis to compensate the wage the employee received less, or if working conditions are substantially changed, altered or not applied; (Provided that no other provision regarding the cases in this paragraph is placed in the contracts.)” In our third labor law of Republican history, Labor Law No. 1475 with acceptance date of August 25, 1971, similar to the previous Laws (No. 3008 and 931), no separate provision was made for substantial change, and in Article 16 titled “Employee’s Right to Terminate Without Notice,” the regulation was made as “e) If it is agreed that the wage will be paid per piece or based on work quantity, but the employer gives less work than the number and quantity the employee can do, and the wage difference is not paid on a time basis to compensate the wage the employee received less, or if working conditions are substantially changed, altered or not applied; (provided that no other provision regarding the cases in this paragraph is placed in the contracts.)” The current Labor Law No. 4857, regulated taking into account the development and changes in working life over time, has the distinction of being the law where substantial change is handled in the most detailed and independent manner. This provision under Article 22 and the innovations it brought to our labor law compared to previous laws will be discussed in the following sections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN WORKING CONDITIONS AND ITS APPLICATION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A. Nature of Substantial Change in Working Conditions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is meant by the concept of working conditions is all conditions such as the employee’s wage, leaves and holidays (annual leave, national holidays and general holidays, weekly holiday, etc.), job description, nature of work, and type of work. Working conditions are determined by the Labor Law, relevant regulations, collective bargaining agreement, and ultimately the employment contract. Therefore, the employee and employer determine matters such as personal rights and working conditions by mutual agreement. However, even though working conditions are determined by mutual agreement, changes occurring over time necessitate the re-evaluation of working conditions. If the changes made in these conditions are to the detriment of the employee, that is, if they are changes that aggravate the employee’s working conditions mentioned above, they will fall within the scope of the provision in Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, subject to evaluation for each employee and case individually. However, changes not of this severity will be evaluated within the scope of the employer’s management rights. For this reason, especially the analysis of Article 22 and the determination of the limits of substantial change are of importance. As we stated in the previous section, according to Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, “The employer may make a substantial change in working conditions formed by the employment contract or sources in the nature of annexes to the employment contract such as personnel regulations and similar sources or workplace practice only by notifying the employee in writing. Changes not made in this form and not accepted in writing by the employee within six working days shall not bind the employee. If the employee does not accept the change proposal within this period, the employer may terminate the employment contract by explaining in writing that the change is based on a valid reason or that there is another valid reason for termination and complying with the notice period. The employee may file a lawsuit according to the provisions of Articles 17 to 21 in this case.” Before this provision was regulated with Labor Law No. 4857, a different regime was adopted in the abolished Labor Law No. 1475. In this period, while the employee had the opportunity to explicitly or implicitly accept the substantial change brought by the employer to their detriment or to terminate the employment contract for just cause, as a result of the aforementioned just cause termination, contrary to the current regulation, they could only acquire the right to seniority compensation; that is, they could not acquire the right to other rights granted to them as a result of termination of the contract by the employer and also notice compensation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B. Procedure in Application of Change<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our current labor legislation, two options arise for the employer: the employer will either not make the change they want to make, or the employee will have to terminate the employment contract. Therefore, since the employment contract is terminated by the employer, the employee acquires the right to seniority compensation as well as other rights granted to them as a result of termination of the contract by the employer and notice compensation. In addition, if the conditions are met, they will also benefit from job security provisions. In this case, consequences related to benefiting from job security also arise; termination may be deemed invalid, and reinstatement may come to the agenda. Alongside this, it must be emphasized at this point that the regulation brought in Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857 does not apply only to employment relationships within the scope of job security and also comes into play in employment relationships outside the scope of this security. The employer must make a written change proposal to the employee regarding the substantial change made. Making the change proposal in written form is a validity condition. Alongside this, the aforementioned proposal must be clear and distinct; moreover, it must be directed individually to employees, not in the form of a collective announcement. In case the stated conditions are not met, the change proposal made will not bind the employee. After the employer makes this notification in due form, the employee has a legal consideration period of 6 days. The aforementioned period regulation is a relatively mandatory provision and can be changed in favor of the employee, that is, it cannot be shortened; however, since it is in favor of the employee, it can be extended. If the employee accepts the proposal again in writing at the end of the period, the changed working conditions apply to them. In case they do not accept, the employment contract continues to be applied with the conditions at the time it was established. In this case, the employer has two options: they may give up on the aforementioned change or terminate the employee’s employment contract by complying with notice periods by explaining in writing that there is a valid reason, as we will discuss in detail in the following sections. In this case, it is possible for the employee to file a reinstatement lawsuit. In case the judicial authorities rule that there is no valid reason for termination, the consequences of invalid termination will arise, and the employee will continue to perform their duties in the working conditions before the change proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C. CASE WHERE EMPLOYEE DOES NOT ACCEPT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. Concept of Valid Reason in Termination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we stated in previous sections, by including the expression “If the employee does not accept the change proposal within this period, the employer may terminate the employment contract by explaining in writing that the change is based on a valid reason or that there is another valid reason for termination and complying with the notice period. The employee may file a lawsuit according to the provisions of Articles 17 to 21 in this case.” in Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, it was stated that for the employer to make a change termination, this change made must be based on a valid reason. Therefore, to understand the essence of termination due to substantial change, it is of vital importance to analyze the concept of valid reason correctly. It must also be stated separately that doctrine has produced ideas on this important subject and there are various discussions. According to the minority view, change termination should be subject to lighter control criteria compared to termination for valid reason. Because in change termination, the employer first resorted to changing working conditions and as a result of rejection of the change, resorted to change termination. Since changing working conditions constitutes a lighter intervention compared to termination of the employment contract, it appears that it would be a more appropriate choice for the employee who does not accept the change to bear this, that is, for a lighter control to be applied in change termination compared to direct termination of the employment contract.\u00b9 According to the dominant view, which is largely adopted in doctrine and also finds its place in precedents, since reference is made to Articles 17 and 18 of the same Law titled “Termination for a Fixed Term” and “Basing Termination on a Valid Reason” of Labor Law No. 4857 in Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, the concept of valid reason in substantial change termination, which constitutes the subject of our study, should parallel the valid reasons found in Articles 17 and 18 of Labor Law No. 4857. Indeed, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber also underlined this view in one of its decisions with the expressions “(\u2026) Valid reason control in change termination must be made in two stages. First, there must be a valid reason that necessitates change in the content of the employment contract. Therefore, the valid reasons sought for termination in Article 18 of Law No. 4857 must also be found exactly in change termination”.\u00b2<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. Valid Reason Control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this section, the concept of valid reason we discussed in the previous section will be examined respectively in light of appropriateness, consistency, arbitrariness, necessity, proportionality, the principle of termination as a last resort, and the social selection principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

a. Appropriateness control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within the scope of appropriateness control, according to Article 48 of the Constitution titled “Freedom of Work and Contract,” the employer has the right to freely regulate in their enterprise in terms of the nature of work and enterprise. In this direction, in cases where the employer’s operational decision is concerned, the view accepted by the majority in doctrine is that appropriateness control regarding whether the decision is useful or suitable for the purpose cannot be made.\u00b3 This view has also been adopted in precedents, and in a decision of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, it was stated that as a result of termination of the employee’s employment contract for operational reasons, no examination can be made regarding whether the employer’s operational decision is useful and suitable for the purpose, in other words, the operational decision cannot be subjected to appropriateness control.\u2074 Therefore, in summary, it is possible to state that the operational decisions taken by the employer by undertaking all their risks cannot be subjected to judicial control, and an contrary acceptance would mean clear interference with constitutional freedom of enterprise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

b. Consistency control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistency control expresses that the employer’s operational decision is permanent and continuous. In addition, actual implementation of the operational decision in the workplace is sought. In case of detection of so-called decisions where actual implementation does not exist, it is highly probable to encounter the claim that change termination is not based on a valid reason. Additionally, contradictory practices must not be made in terms of order before and after change termination. To exemplify this situation, if the employer hires a new employee in the same position instead of the employee they dismissed, the previous dismissal will not pass consistency control. However, at this point, it must be emphasized importantly that in the specificity of consistency control, the concept of contradictory behavior must be examined based on the specific conditions of the concrete case itself. The Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber also clarified this situation in one of its decisions with the expressions “The plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated by the defendant employer due to public debts, some works being done through service procurement, and emerging personnel surplus alongside not being in need of their service. The defendant employer also stated separately that the reduction rule specified in Article 32 of the collective bargaining agreement was complied with in termination of the employment contract. \u2026. However, it was understood that the defendant employer did not bring objective criteria, and also engaged in practices contradicting the reason for termination by hiring new employees. \u2026 According to these concrete material and legal facts, the defendant employer did not behave consistently in implementing the operational decision. It is certain that the termination of the employment contract realized by the defendant employer is not based on a valid reason.”\u2075 and emphasized that for the termination of the employee’s employment contract by the employer to be accepted as based on a valid reason in cases of economic reasons, or no longer being in need of service and the employee creating employment surplus, the employer must behave consistently in implementing the operational decision and must not engage in practices contradicting termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

c. Arbitrariness control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitrariness control takes its basis from Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code “Everyone is obliged to comply with the rules of good faith while exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations. The legal order does not protect the explicit abuse of a right.” Arbitrary operational decisions that are contrary to the rule of good faith, that is, in the nature of abuse of right, will not be included within the scope of valid reason in substantial change in this respect. Indeed, the Court of Cassation also expressed this matter as “The employer who terminates the employment contract with an operational decision in the employment relationship, according to Article 2 of the Civil Code, while exercising this right within the scope of management authority, must not behave arbitrarily, must be honest while taking the operational decision. Since the employee claims in arbitrariness control that the employer behaved arbitrarily, according to the general rule of proof, the employee must prove this situation.\u2076”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

d. Necessity control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this stage, it will be evaluated whether termination of the employment contract is inevitable for the employer. Necessity control is the control of whether it is possible to reach the operational situation the employer wants to reach, that is, the purpose of the change in question in the enterprise, with a milder change proposal. According to Court of Cassation precedent, this control must be made regarding whether the decision taken is in compliance with the law and contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

e. Proportionality control<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proportionality control finds its basis in Article 13 of the Constitution titled “Restriction of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.” According to this provision “Fundamental rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law, based on the reasons stated in the relevant articles of the Constitution, without touching upon their essence. These restrictions shall not be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, the requirements of the democratic order of society and of the secular Republic, and the principle of proportionality.” The principle of proportionality brought by the aforementioned constitutional regulation also constitutes the basis of job security law. With the principle of proportionality, an evaluation is made at the point of whether the termination made by the employer due to the requirements of the enterprise, workplace, and work is inevitable. The principle of proportionality is examined in three stages as suitability, necessity, and proportionality principles. With the suitability principle, the suitability situation between the measure intended to be implemented, that is, the change proposal directed by the employer to the employee, and the operational purpose they want to reach is examined. The necessity principle, after the suitability evaluation is made, is the evaluation of whether a measure that is equally effective but will cause less damage to the legally protected area of another is necessary in terms of the purpose intended to be reached.\u2077 Finally, with the proportionality principle, the proportionality situation between the measure intended to be implemented, that is, the change proposal directed by the employer to the employee, and the operational purpose they want to reach is examined. Within this scope, the employer must primarily determine which alternative ways they can apply besides termination. For example, instead of termination, the employee’s job description, department, or workplace can be changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

f. Principle of termination as a last resort (Ultima ratio)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Ultima ratio” means the last resort, the last measure to be applied. The principle of termination as a last resort takes its basis from the principle of adherence to contract and performance of the contract in accordance with the rules of good faith regulated in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which we also discussed in the section above. When this principle is examined within the scope of valid reason in change termination, if it is not possible to continue the employee’s employment contract without realizing the change proposed by the employer, a causal link will be established in terms of valid reason. On the other hand, despite the existence of the reason for termination, if the employee’s opportunity to work in the workplace does not disappear, it will not be possible to speak of a causal link being established between the valid reason and the termination procedure. Because in cases where the goal the employer wants to reach with the operational decision can be reached by a way other than termination, it is not possible to speak of the existence of a valid reason for the termination intended to be made based on the operational decision. That is, the employer must resort to termination as a last resort in a situation where despite taking all measures before resorting to termination, they still could not prevent the employee from losing their job in the workplace. Therefore, when the subject is evaluated taking into account the matters we mentioned above, it is seen that what is essentially important is to preserve the existence of the employment relationship within the scope of the principle of adherence to contract between the employee and employer. At this point, termination constitutes an exceptional situation. To be able to speak of the inevitability of termination, it must not be possible to reach the purpose envisaged by the operational decision by another way besides termination. For this reason, termination must be resorted to as a last resort, and within the scope of termination as a last resort control, it must be investigated whether there is an opportunity to avoid termination. Indeed, in a case that was the subject of a Court of Cassation decision, the employee stated that their employment contract was terminated, the termination was not based on a valid reason, termination had to be a last resort, but the employer did not take this into account, and requested reinstatement; the employer stated that they investigated the possibility of utilizing the employee in other jobs, there was no other job within the company structure, they did what was required of them regarding finding a suitable job but this situation was not sufficient, there was no vacant position suitable for the employee, and they terminated the employment contract based on a valid reason by paying all the employee’s legal rights. The Court of Cassation, in the face of the concrete case, determined that in case the employer does not employ the employee who left work due to military service regulated in paragraph 4 of Article 31 of Labor Law No. 4857 and applies for work again after this duty ends, despite there being a vacant position, it was understood that there were vacant positions in the workplace by the employer employing these employees whose whether they would apply for work after military service was uncertain upon application, and since these vacant positions were not offered to employees within the scope of job security within the scope of the principle of termination as a last resort, decided on the invalidity of termination.\u2078<\/p>\n\n\n\n

g. Social selection principle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The social selection principle, for the purpose of protecting the weak party, can be defined as the obligation to make selection by complying with certain criteria in the selection of employees to be dismissed, that is, as a tool that will concretize the employee surplus arising from the requirements of work, workplace, and enterprise by determining the employees whose employment contracts will be terminated.\u2079 Those who accept the social selection principle in doctrine are in the minority. According to this view, for social selection to be resorted to, termination must become inevitable due to workplace requirements, or due to some job descriptions disappearing, termination of employees’ employment contracts by the employer must become inevitable. For social selection within this scope, before carrying out the termination procedure, an evaluation must be made among employees, and while ensuring the continuation of the employment contract of employees who need social protection, the employment contracts of employees who need less social protection must be terminated.\u00b9\u2070 According to this view, while selecting the employees whose employment contracts will be terminated due to workplace requirements, taking into account whether they need social protection is within the scope of the employer’s duty of care. Therefore, it is argued that in Turkish Labor Law, just like in Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands labor law systems, social criteria such as seniority, retirement, disability must be taken into account. On the other hand, the dominant view is that since there is no concrete legal regulation on social selection, there is no obligation to make social selection in the selection of employees whose employment contracts will be terminated by the employer based on workplace requirements. According to this view, adopting the social selection principle is contrary to the principles of legal security and legal clarity. For this reason, it will not be appropriate to impose an obligation on the employer that is not brought by law and whose content and conditions are uncertain. The recent decisions of the Court of Cassation are that except for “non-compliance with the obligation of equal treatment” regulated in Article 5 of Labor Law No. 4857 and “protective regulations for union member employees” in Articles 24 and following of Law No. 6356 “Law on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements,” in termination based on operational requirements, no criterion determined by law or social selection condition is placed in determining the employees whose employment contracts will be terminated, in other words, there is no obligation to comply with the social selection condition in the selection of employees whose employment contracts will be terminated as a result of the employer’s operational decision.\u00b9\u00b9 However, if it is stated in the employment contract that certain criteria will be complied with regarding employee dismissal, or if there is a claim that there is workplace practice in the form of the employer observing certain criteria in employment contract terminations, it must be controlled whether the employer complies with these criteria. During litigation, control regarding the selection of employees will only be possible within this scope in light of current precedents and the dominant view in doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

D. Changes Made for Economic Reasons and Their Measures<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we discussed in the sections above with its legal framework and doctrinal dimensions, it would be appropriate to say that fundamentally it is not possible to hide behind terminations due to change in financial matters. To handle the subject more concretely and to subject the examples employers frequently encounter in daily business life to substantial change control, we deem it appropriate to proceed from specific cases in this section. First, if an example where the meal card practice given to employees in a workplace was removed by citing economic difficulties is to be evaluated in light of the criteria discussed in the previous section, since the aforementioned practice will remain within the scope of the employer’s operational decision, appropriateness control cannot be made. If an evaluation is made in terms of consistency control, since the removal of the meal card practice will be implemented in fact, there will be no violation in terms of this criterion either. At the third stage, arbitrariness control comes into play. According to this criterion, the removal of the meal card practice must not carry the purpose of abuse of right. In the given example, since there is a situation where economic difficulties are cited, not an application contrary to the rule of good faith, there is no violation in terms of arbitrariness control either. When it comes to the necessity control stage, since the employer can reach the operational situation they want to reach, that is, the purpose of the change in question, with a milder change application, for example, by providing meals in the workplace cafeteria instead of removing the meal card, it will not be possible to reach the conclusion that the measure taken is necessary. Therefore, since the given example could not pass necessity control, it will not be considered a valid reason by the employer. In this case, since the employee experiences loss of rights, the employer’s termination by taking refuge in the concept of valid reason will result in violation of the control criteria we discussed in the section above. If the above example is to be revised in the context of substantial change control and subjected to control again, it would be possible to say that the situation of providing meals to employees in the workplace cafeteria instead of the meal card practice defined in the amount of 10,000 TL monthly, for example, will pass the substantial change control without encountering any legal problem. Because in this case, basically the purpose of the meal card practice, which is providing meals to employees, is fulfilled through another way, that is, by providing meals to employees in the cafeteria. By finding a substitute way, the situation is adapted to the changing economic conditions by the employer, and the employee does not experience loss of rights. Therefore, it will be possible to proceed with proportionality control without being caught by necessity control. The first stage of proportionality control is suitability. When the suitability situation between the measure intended to be implemented, that is, the measure of removing the meal card practice and providing meals in the cafeteria instead, and the operational purpose the employer wants to reach, that is, eliminating economic difficulties, is examined, it can be thought that the measure is suitable in reaching the purpose. In terms of the necessity principle, which is the second stage, since it is a measure that is equally effective despite removing the meal card practice and causes less damage to the employee’s legally protected area, this stage of control is also provided. The proportionality principle, which is the last stage in proportionality control, is the existence of proportion between the change proposal directed by the employer to the employee, that is, providing meals in the cafeteria, and the operational purpose they want to reach, that is, getting rid of economic difficulties. Since the employer switched to cafeteria practice instead of removing the meal card, that is, since they determined which alternative ways they could apply, it can be said that the proportionality principle is ensured. Therefore, in the second example, there is no non-compliance in the valid reason control in substantial change. If we continue our evaluations with this perspective, for example, while it is not possible to completely remove the travel allowance given to employees for the purpose of covering transportation costs or to reduce the amount by showing economic reasons, providing shuttle service to employees instead of travel allowance will be in line with the spirit of the substantial change institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Substantial change in working conditions, especially when financial reasons are concerned, constitutes one of the controversial areas of labor law both theoretically and in practice. With Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, it has been brought that the change proposal directed by the employer to the employee must be in writing, clearly stated, and the employee must accept this change in writing within six working days; otherwise, it has been decreed that this change will not bind the employee. In case the employer resorts to the termination path in this situation, the termination procedure must be based on a valid reason. At this point, control principles such as appropriateness, consistency, arbitrariness, necessity, proportionality, termination as a last resort, and social selection come into play, and the termination procedure is evaluated by judicial authorities within this framework. Consequently, the compliance with law of changes the employer will make in working conditions is not only related to compliance with legislation provisions but also closely related to elements such as whether this change produces results to the detriment of the employee, whether the employer acts sincerely and proportionately. In cases of substantial change and related terminations, both the protection of the employee’s rights and the employer’s operational needs must be taken into account; in this context, an attempt is made to ensure the fair balance that is the purpose of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

\u00b9 Tabak\u00f6z, Mert, “Change in Working Conditions and Change Termination Within the Scope of Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857,” Bah\u00e7e\u015fehir University Private Law Master’s Thesis, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b2 Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, 15.12.2008, E. 2007\/34586, K. 2008\/33685<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b3 Ekmek\u00e7i, \u00d6mer, “On the Situation of Judiciary Against Job Security Law No. 4773 and Potential Application Problems,” Mercek, No. 28, October 2002, p.102; Ba\u011fc\u0131, Sevde Bet\u00fcl, “Judicial Control of Valid Termination Reason Arising from Requirements of Enterprise, Workplace or Work,” \u0130stanbul Medipol University Institute of Social Sciences Master’s Thesis, 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2074 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2017\/25827 K. 2018\/4222 T. 26.2.2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2075 Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2007\/11913, K.2007\/29307, T. 08.10.2007<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2076 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2017\/19901 K. 2017\/6567 T. 17.04.2017<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2077 Sayg\u0131n, Engin, “A Comparative Analysis on Turkish and English Administrative Law Approach to the Principle of Proportionality,” Ankara Bar Association Journal, 2017\/2, p.68.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2078 Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2013\/15658 K. 2014\/3208 T. 4.2.2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2079 Alpagut, G\u00fclsevil, “Termination of Employment Relationship and Seniority Compensation,” Turkish National Committee of Labor Law and Social Security Law, Evaluation of Court of Cassation Decisions Related to Labor Law 2005, Ankara, 2007, p.97.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b9\u2070 G\u00fczel, Ali, \u00abEvaluation of Court of Cassation’s 2010 Decisions in Terms of Termination of Employment Relationship and Seniority Compensation\u00bb, Evaluation of Court of Cassation’s Labor Law and Social Security Law Decisions 2010, Ankara, Kamu \u0130\u015f, 2012, p.227,228.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b9\u00b9 Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2015\/1199 K. 2015\/6314 T. 12.2.2015, Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2014\/36925 K. 2015\/6316 T. 12.02.2015.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nazif KARATA\u015e, Labor Law Partner Hilal ESENBAY, Trainee Lawyer KEYWORDS Substantial Change, Employee Consent, Working Conditions ABSTRACT The needs that arise over […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[60,61,62],"class_list":["post-3496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-makale","tag-employee-consent","tag-substantial-change","tag-working-conditions"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3496"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3496\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3572,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3496\/revisions\/3572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}