12.07.2026 10:01
The head chef working at the hotel was fired without severance after cursing at trainees and other employees and displaying aggressive behavior. The Court of Cassation found the employer justified and rejected the chef's compensation claim.
While working as a head chef in the hotel where he was employed, he virtually terrorized his colleagues and, on top of that, called an intern chef an 'idiot, ox,' and things escalated. The Court of Cassation, which delivered the final ruling in the years-long lawsuit of the head chef who was dismissed without severance pay, found the hotel operator in the right.
THE FINAL WORD WAS SPOKEN BY THE COURT OF CASSATION
The head chef K.H., who was dismissed from the hotel where he worked, filed a case with the Labor Court. He claimed that his employment contract was terminated without just cause and that there were unpaid labor receivables, demanding the collection of severance pay, notice pay, overtime pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, weekly holiday pay, and minimum subsistence allowance. The hotel operator argued that the plaintiff made vulgar remarks to the intern chef M.K., did the same to other employees, and for this reason, the employment contract was justifiably terminated. They stated that the compensation for the overtime work he performed was reflected in payroll records and paid into his bank accounts, or he was given compensatory time off, that the overtime pay for up to 270 hours per year was included in the salary according to the employment contract, and that the plaintiff had no unpaid receivables, requesting the dismissal of the case. The Labor Court partly accepted the case, reasoning that although the termination was defended as justified due to the plaintiff's vulgar remarks to the intern M.K. and other employees, no concrete documents were submitted to the file, nor was the employment contract showing that overtime was included in the salary. The decision was appealed. The Regional Court of Appeals rejected the objections. When the operator appealed the decision, the final word in the years-long lawsuit was spoken by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
MISTREATED AND INSULTED WORK COLLEAGUES
In the decision, it was emphasized that if continuing the employment relationship becomes unbearable for the employer due to the employee's behavior contrary to moral and good faith rules, the employer has the right to immediate termination with just cause. It was reminded that the basis of the employer's right to immediate termination is to ensure discipline and order in the workplace. In the specific case, it was noted that the employment contract was terminated with just cause due to the plaintiff's harassment of another employee of the employer, swearing, causing negativities in the workplace, disrupting work peace, engaging in actions inconsistent with loyalty and fidelity, and failing to comply with work discipline. In the Court of Cassation's decision, it stated: 'In examining the file, it is clear that in the incident leading to the termination, the plaintiff started shouting at M.K., who was working as an intern, claiming the cloths smelled bad, used vulgar swears, and made violent remarks. It was understood that the employee had undergone eye surgery, informed the plaintiff that his doctor said he should not work, and the plaintiff humiliated him in front of everyone, saying ‘ox, imbecile, idiot, you are useless, see to your own affairs.’ Considering the evidence in the file, it is established that the plaintiff harassed the intern whom the employer was obliged to protect, used profane language, and displayed aggressive attitudes and vulgar swears against other employees, thereby exhibiting behaviors contrary to moral and good faith rules, disrupting the work peace, order, and discipline in the workplace. In the face of these established behaviors of the plaintiff, it must be accepted that the trust foundation in the employment relationship has collapsed. In this respect, the employer's termination of the contract under Article 25(II) of Law No. 4857 due to violation of moral and good faith rules is justified. Since it is understood that the termination by the employer was based on just cause, the plaintiff's claims for severance pay and notice pay should have been rejected, but the decision to accept them with the written reasoning is incorrect, and the decision must be overturned for this reason.'