Reinstatement Lawsuits in Türkiye: Scope, Process and Risks for Employers

1. Introduction: The Hidden Cost of a Dismissal Decision To many employers, terminating an employment contract looks like a one-page notice. Yet dismissing an employee covered by job security is a process woven with procedural, time-limit and burden-of-proof rules that forgives no mistakes. A dismissal handled without proper procedure returns months later as a reinstatement judgment, accrued wages and compensation. This article examines the reinstatement lawsuit from the employer's perspective, under Articles 17-21 of Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 and Labor Courts Law No. 7036.

2. Who Is Covered by Job Security? (Art. 18) The reinstatement claim is not available to everyone. Three conditions must coexist: a workplace employing thirty or more employees, the employee's at least six months' seniority, and an indefinite-term employment contract. In counting thirty employees, all of the employer's workplaces in the same line of business are aggregated; under Court of Cassation practice, even the employer's workplaces abroad may be included. The six-month seniority condition does not apply to employees working underground.

The exclusions matter just as much: employer representatives who manage the entire enterprise and their assistants, and representatives who manage the whole workplace and hold the authority to hire and dismiss, cannot benefit from job security provisions. In senior-executive separations, this distinction is the first question of strategy.

3. What Is — and Is Not — a Valid Ground? A dismissal within the scope of job security must rest on a valid ground: the employee's competence (such as low performance), conduct (such as behavior disrupting workplace order), or the requirements of the enterprise, workplace or work (such as downsizing or restructuring). The law also lists what can never constitute a valid ground: union membership or activity, filing complaints against the employer or pursuing legal remedies, race, sex, pregnancy and maternity leave can never justify a dismissal.

The most common mistake in practice is dressing an operational decision as a "performance" dismissal, or terminating for conduct without documents and records. Whatever the ground is, the file must be built accordingly: performance evaluations, warnings, minutes, and records showing that an operational decision was applied consistently.

4. Procedure: Form Can Defeat Substance (Art. 19) The termination notice must be in writing, and the ground must be stated clearly and precisely. A ground modified or expanded later puts the employer in a difficult position before the court; as a rule, the employer is bound by the ground stated in the notice.

In dismissals based on the employee's conduct or performance, the contract cannot be terminated without taking the employee's defense. The statute does not prescribe a form for the defense; for evidentiary safety, requesting and obtaining it in writing is the established and sound practice. The employer's immediate termination for just cause under Article 25/II is the exception to this rule. Skipping the defense procedure can, on its own, invalidate the dismissal even where a valid ground exists.

5. Process and Deadlines: Mandatory Mediation (Art. 20; Law 7036) Within one month from service of the termination notice, the employee must apply to a mediator with a reinstatement claim; mediation is a procedural prerequisite in reinstatement disputes. If no settlement is reached, the lawsuit must be filed with the labor court within two weeks from the date of the final mediation report. These short, staged periods are preclusive for both sides and, in practice, single-handedly decide the fate of many claims.

As a recent development, by its decision of 3 June 2025 (E.2024/157, K.2025/121) the Constitutional Court annulled the provision of Law No. 7036 that required the principal employer and the subcontractor to participate jointly in mediation with concordant intent for the settlement to be valid. Workplaces with subcontracting structures should revisit their mediation strategy in light of this ruling. Note also that in reinstatement cases the regional court of appeal's decision is final; no further appeal lies to the Court of Cassation.

6. The Burden of Proof Lies on the Employer (Art. 20/2) The burden of proving that the dismissal rested on a valid ground belongs to the employer. If the employee claims the dismissal rested on a different reason, the employee bears the burden of proving that claim. The practical consequence is clear: the dismissal file must be prepared before the dismissal, not once the case is filed.

7. The Bill for an Invalid Dismissal (Art. 21) If the court finds the dismissal invalid, the process runs as follows. The employee must apply to the employer to resume work within ten business days from service of the finalized judgment; failing that, the dismissal becomes valid. Upon application, the employer must reinstate the employee within one month. If it does not, it pays non-reinstatement compensation of four to eight months' wages as determined by the court; Court of Cassation practice grades this range by seniority. In addition — whether or not the employee is reinstated — the employee is paid wages and other entitlements for the period not worked until the judgment became final, capped at four months.

Since Law No. 7036, the court fixes both the non-reinstatement compensation and the idle-period receivable as monetary amounts in the judgment, based on the wage at the date of filing. For the employer, this makes the exposure more predictable — yet, together with severance differentials, notice pay and interest, still a serious item.

8. Mutual Termination (İkale): An Alternative, If Structured Properly Ending the employment contract by mutual agreement (ikale) is not a dismissal; after a valid ikale, a reinstatement lawsuit is as a rule unavailable. However, the Court of Cassation conditions the validity of an ikale on the existence of a reasonable benefit for the employee: where the offer came from the employer, a benefit beyond severance and notice pay is sought. An ikale lacking reasonable benefit, or tainted by defective consent, may be treated as an invalid dismissal — reopening the door to reinstatement. Properly structured, ikale is a predictable solution; carelessly structured, it is merely a postponed reinstatement lawsuit.

9. An Employer's Checklist - Verify job-security coverage before dismissal (aggregate all workplaces in the same line of business for the thirty-employee count). - Define the ground and build the file before the dismissal (evaluations, warnings, minutes, records of the operational decision). - In conduct/performance dismissals, never skip the defense procedure; run it in writing for proof. - Issue the termination notice in writing, state the ground clearly and precisely, and do not change it later. - Treat mediation strategically; track the deadlines with calendar alerts. - If a reinstatement judgment becomes final, be ready for the ten business days / one month sequence; cost both scenarios in advance. - In negotiated exits, structure the ikale around the reasonable benefit element.

10. Conclusion For an employer, a lost reinstatement case is not merely a compensation item; it means retroactive wage exposure, a re-employment problem and an internal precedent effect. Yet the process is one whose rules are known in advance and which can be managed with proper preparation. Employers who treat dismissal as a legal project — verifying coverage, building the file beforehand, respecting procedure and tracking deadlines — either avoid most of these cases altogether or face them from a position of strength.

_This content is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For a specific dismissal process, reinstatement dispute or mutual-termination negotiation, we recommend consulting a lawyer specialized in employment law._