La résiliation du contrat de travail en raison de la vie privée

In this study titled "Termination of the Employment Contract Due to Private Life", the concept of private life is examined in the context of its reflection in the employment contract and in light of the phenomenon of termination. Private life, which constitutes the individual's sphere of freedom, privacy, and security, is legally defined as a domain in which confidentiality and respect are essential. Various criteria have been proposed to identify this domain of life, which is characterized as strictly personal, absolute, inviolable, inalienable, non-transferable, and not measurable in monetary terms. These criteria have led to different definitions of private life. Although these definitions vary depending on time and place, private life is today accepted and protected as a right based on confidentiality and deserving of respect. The scope of the right to respect for private life, which concerns both private and public law -and thus is protected both as a personality right and a human right- is quite broad. From the perspective of personality rights, it includes values such as health and bodily integrity, identity, name, image, voice, honor, and dignity, and from the perspective of human rights, it pertains to values such as private life, family life, the inviolability of the home, and the freedom of communication. The right to privacy in private life is protected by both international and national legal regulations. This protection applies equally to the private life of workers employed under employment contracts. Therefore, the first part of the study is devoted to the concept of private life, and the second part addresses how private life is reflected in the employment contract. As a continuous, trust-based, and personal contract, the employment contract establishes a relationship that cannot be clearly and definitively separated from the employee's private life. While this relationship functions to restrict the employee's private life on the one hand, it also draws boundaries around the rights and powers arising from the employment contract for the employer on the other. Indeed, the element of subordination -characteristic of the employment contract- and the employee's duty of obedience, together with the duty of loyalty that obliges the employee not to harm the employer's interests, restrict the private life of the employee as it reflects in the employment contract. While the element of subordination and the duty of obedience affect private life in terms of the element of independence, the duty of loyalty impacts it in terms of freedom of expression and freedom to work. The principle of protecting the employee in labor law necessitates the protection of the employee's private life even within the scope of the employment contract. In this regard, the employee's right to respect for private life requires the employer to exercise their freedom of contract and managerial rights in accordance with the law, while also preventing them from violating their duty to protect and safeguard. Consequently, the employer, who has the freedom to contract with any worker, must refrain from discrimination during contract negotiations and avoid asking questions related to the employee's private life unless the nature of the work requires it. Furthermore, practices and instructions issued by the employer during the continuation of the employment contract -such as requiring fingerprint scans upon entry and exit, conducting searches, monitoring employees and their communications, supervising social media accounts, implementing rules regarding smoking and alcohol consumption or dress code, and prohibiting romantic relationships in the workplace-constitute interferences with the employee's private life. These interferences occur through the employer's exercise of managerial authority derived from law and contract, while the employee bears a duty of obedience in response. However, for the employee's duty of obedience to be invoked, the employer must exercise managerial authority in accordance with the law. At this point, the legal compliance test comes into play in relation to interference with private life. In our study, the compliance test is presented as a four-stage test developed in light of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court, with an additional fourth stage added in the form of compliance with the principle of equal treatment. According to this test: the first stage requires a legal basis for the interference; the second stage requires that the interference with legal basis must pursue a legitimate aim; the third stage necessitates that the interference be necessary, proportionate, and measured in achieving the aim; and the fourth and final stage requires that the interference -which is legally grounded, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary, proportionate, and measured- also complies with the duty of equal treatment. An employer's interference that satisfies all four stages is deemed lawful, and lawful interference imposes a burden of tolerance on the employee. If the employer's directive constituting interference with private life fails to meet any of the four stages of the legality test, the interference is deemed unlawful and does not give rise to a duty of obedience for the employee. While legal compliance in terms of the employer's managerial right refers to the lawful exercise of that right, compliance with the duty to protect and safeguard directly constitutes legality. In other words, the employer's behavior in line with their duty to protect and safeguard constitutes legal conduct, while a breach of this duty constitutes illegality. Therefore, interference with the employee's private life also occurs through breaches of the duty to protect and safeguard. Psychological and sexual harassment by the employer, failure to comply with occupational health and safety measures, and unlawful processing of personal data constitute unlawful interference with the employee's private life. Unlawful interference by the employer in the employee's private life gives rise to termination by the employee, while the employee's resistance to lawful interference gives rise to termination by the employer. In the third part of our study, the termination of the employment contract due to private life is discussed separately as termination by the employee and termination by the employer. The employee's termination of the employment contract due to private life is examined based on whether the private life cited as justification belongs to the employee or the employer. In this context, it is possible for the employee to cite their own private life as a reason for terminating the contract, which may take various forms depending on the consequences. First and foremost, the employee, who has full freedom to terminate, may terminate an indefinite-term employment contract for any reason pertaining to their private life. This constitutes termination with notice by the employee, and apart from the right to time off to seek new employment and other earned rights, the employee is not entitled to any severance pay. Severance pay, considered one of the most important employee entitlements and payable to employees with over one year of service, is only applicable if the employment contract is terminated for reasons listed in Article 14 of the repealed but still partially effective Law No. 1475. Termination by the employee for reasons related to private life that qualify for severance pay includes: the female employee's termination upon marriage, immediate termination due to health reasons under Article 24/I of the Labor Law, and immediate termination under Article 24/II of the Labor Law due to employer misconduct that violates the principles of morality and good faith in relation to the employee's private life. The employer's unjust attack on the employee's private life or violation of the right to respect for private life through unlawful exercise of managerial authority constitutes just cause for the employee. In such cases, the employee may immediately terminate the contract, regardless of whether it is for a fixed or indefinite term, and without adhering to notice periods, thereby becoming entitled to severance pay. These aspects relate to the impact of the employee's private life on termination. Another point that distinguishes our study from others in this field is that it examines the termination of the employment contract due to private life not only from the perspective of the employee's private life but also from that of the employer's. Although the employment contract typically establishes a personal relationship solely from the employee's side, when the contract is formed with a focus on the employer's personal characteristics, it also establishes a personal relationship for the employer. An example is a contract made to work exclusively with a renowned lawyer known to the public. In such a case, the employment contract -formed based on the employer's personal traits- permits the events occurring in the employer's personality or private life to be grounds for termination. For example, if the said lawyer becomes involved in corruption allegations, is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, and consequently suffers damage to their public reputation, resulting in their fame turning into notoriety, such an event in the employer's private life may affect the employment contract. If this event renders continued employment unbearable for the employee, they may immediately terminate the contract with just cause under Article 24/II of the Labor Law. Since the employment contract always establishes a personal relationship from the employee's side, it is common for the employee's private life to be cited by the employer as grounds for termination. In our study, termination of the employment contract by the employer due to private life is examined separately based on whether the event in the employee's private life constitutes a valid reason or a just cause. Considering that the concept of valid reason applies only in employment contracts subject to job security, termination based on private life in contracts not subject to job security is first examined, concluding that only two limits exist. Indeed, in employment contracts not covered by job security, the employer's right of termination is limited only by the prohibitions on discrimination and abuse of rights. These limitations are imposed by prescribing compensation for discrimination or bad faith. Even if these prohibitions are violated, the termination notice still ends the contract; however, the employer is obliged to compensate the employee for the violation. In employment contracts subject to job security, the employer must rely on a valid reason for termination; thus, the event in the employee's private life must have an adverse reflection on the employment relationship. Besides the requirement of a valid reason, the employer's notice of termination must be in writing, must clearly state the reason for termination, must comply with the principle of last resort, and if based on employee conduct, the employee's defense must be obtained. Any termination lacking one of these requirements is invalid, allowing the employee to challenge the termination and potentially be reinstated. Valid termination ends the contract and entitles the employee to severance pay, if applicable. As termination with compensation, valid termination also balances conflicting interests. In this respect, it offers a solution for cases where both the employer's interference with the employee's private life and the employee's resistance to that interference are justified. The vaccine mandate serves as an example. If the employer initiates a vaccination program due to occupational safety requirements and satisfies the conditions for lawful interference, it constitutes lawful interference with the employee's private life. On the other hand, vaccination constitutes an irreversible intervention in the employee's bodily integrity -a value within their private life- even outside working hours, and expecting the employee to tolerate it would violate fairness. The solution in this case is termination with valid reason, allowing the employer to hire another employee in compliance with occupational safety and enabling the employee to seek employment elsewhere without bodily interference while receiving severance pay. It is also possible for private life to constitute a just cause for termination by the employer. These include health reasons, violations of morality and good faith, force majeure, and the employee's detention or imprisonment. Statutory health-related reasons arising from the employee's condition that render continued work impossible for more than one week, as well as absence exceeding the notice period due to detention or imprisonment, allow the employer to terminate the contract immediately without notice, entitling the employee to severance pay. In contrast, termination based on violations of morality and good faith does not entitle the employee to severance pay. In this respect, termination based on such violations differs in outcome from termination for valid reason or other just causes. Violations of morality and good faith include the employee's unjust attacks on the private life of the employer or colleagues, as well as the employee's defiance of lawful and necessary employer interventions in their private life. In this study, the relationship between the employment contract and private life is examined in light of the phenomenon of termination, and different consequences are presented based on the parties and grounds of termination. As a result of this analysis, it is concluded that in some cases, termination of the employment contract serves to restrict private life, while in others, private life imposes limits on the right to terminate arising from the employment contract.