30.10.2026 18:51
The foreign trade manager, whose employer had approved working from home, was dismissed on the allegation that he was absent in the month for which 30 days of insurance premiums were paid. The Court, putting an end to the years-long lawsuit, ruled that the employee’s work from home cannot be considered absenteeism and reinstated the plaintiff.
Within the knowledge of the employer, the foreign trade manager working from home was dismissed due to absenteeism in the month in which 30 days of social security premiums were paid. The aggrieved manager, who filed a lawsuit in the Labor Court, requested a ruling that the termination of his employment contract by the defendant employer was invalid because it was terminated by the defendant employer without a valid and just cause, that he be reinstated, and that it be determined that the defendant is responsible for the financial consequences of reinstatement.
LABOR COURT FOUND THE COMPANY JUSTIFIED
The defendant company's lawyer requested that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated for just cause and that the lawsuit be dismissed. The Labor Court drew attention to the fact that there was no consent regarding working from home accepted by the parties in the employment contract, that the plaintiff could not unilaterally determine the working system, and that the plaintiff did not go to the workplace of his own accord. Since it was understood that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated for just cause following the absenteeism records kept by the defendant, the lawsuit was dismissed.
THE COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED THE DECISION
When the plaintiff's lawyer appealed the decision, the Regional Court of Justice (BAM), which stepped in, signed a precedent-setting decision. Examining the plaintiff's SGK service record, the BAM questioned why 30 days of social security premiums had been paid for the month in which he was dismissed for absenteeism, and emphasized that the plaintiff's witness had also stated that a work-from-home system was implemented at the workplace and that he and the purchasing manager also worked from home. It was recalled that the defendant employer did not object to the plaintiff working from home for such a long time, and thus the plaintiff's way of working from home was accepted without objection and turned into the applied working method.
The decision stated: "It is clear that the defendant's witness M. A. also stated that the plaintiff worked from home for a while during the period he did not come and that he saw this from his emails. It is understood that the employer did not keep any absenteeism record until the end of the month, fully reported the number of working days to the SGK, and until that date consented to the plaintiff's remote work, and no notification was made that the remote work system was not accepted or was abolished. After the notice served on the plaintiff and the plaintiff's statement that he wanted to work from home, the defendant employer should have made a new arrangement regarding the working order and notified the plaintiff, but instead an absenteeism record was drawn up about the plaintiff; it is obvious that the plaintiff did not have the intent to be absent and continued his work through the remote work system. Since it is seen that the first-instance court's decision dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit, although it was not proven that the employment contract was terminated for just cause, was not correct, with the acceptance of the plaintiff's appeal, it was ruled that the first-instance court decision be lifted, the plaintiff's lawsuit be accepted, the termination made by the defendant employer be invalid, and the plaintiff be reinstated."