05.08.2026 13:11
In a lawsuit filed by a waiter who was dismissed from his 10-year job for putting a tea glass down on the table hard, the Regional Court of Appeal issued a landmark decision. The court ruled that a verbal argument between the employee and the employer cannot alone be grounds for dismissal, and ordered the waiter's reinstatement.
A precedent-setting decision was made in the lawsuit filed by a waiter who was dismissed from his 10-year job for allegedly placing a tea glass on the table too hard at the restaurant where he worked. The Regional Court of Appeal ruled that not every verbal argument between an employee and employer can be grounds for dismissal and ordered the worker's reinstatement.
The waiter, who had worked at the same restaurant for about 10 years, applied to the Labor Court claiming that his employment contract was terminated without a just or valid reason. The employer, on the other hand, requested that the case be dismissed. The first instance court found the employer justified and dismissed the case.
CASE MOVED TO APPEAL
Following the decision, the waiter's lawyer moved the case file to the Regional Court of Appeal. The 6th Law Chamber of the BAM (Regional Court of Appeal), which examined the file, stated that the worker had only two complaint records regarding incidents during his approximately 10-year employment period.
ALLEGATION OF "PLACING THE TEA GLASS HARD"
In the decision, based on the employer witness's statements, allegations were included that the waiter placed the glass hard on the table during tea service, took the empty glass by dragging it, and placed drinks in hard-to-reach spots. However, the court emphasized that there was no evidence that the worker insulted anyone or physically intervened.
"DISMISSAL SHOULD BE THE LAST RESORT"
The Regional Court of Appeal stated that a verbal argument between the employee and employer cannot alone be considered grounds for dismissal. In the decision, it was stated that lighter disciplinary measures could have been applied to the worker, such as a written warning, and that directly terminating the employment contract was contrary to the principle of "dismissal being the last resort."
DECISION FOR REINSTATEMENT
The court overturned the first instance court's decision, deemed the termination of the employment contract invalid, and ruled for the waiter's reinstatement.