221 / 391
LABOR LAW
207
agreements. Thus, the conclusion of a release agreement regarding a
receivable in the future is not possible.
The quittances provided in the course of the employment agreement
are deemed null and void as a consequence of the principle of protection
of the employee in labor law.
The quittance provided in the course of service does not render
invalid any rights of the employee which arise subsequent to the quittance,
pursuant to the uniform jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals. In this
framework, the decision should be made by comparing and evaluating
evidence presented by the parties.
According to a recent decision of the Court of Appeals, release
agreements concluded in the course of the employment relationship are
null and void. This is because the employee is completely dependent upon
his or her employer during this period and despite the dispositions of labor
protection, the employee concludes the release agreement either in order
to continue the employment relationship or for the immediate obtainment
of some rights.
As the release agreement is a means of termination of incontestable
debts, it is not possible for a contestable debt or a debt whose existence
is questionable to be terminated by means of a release. Therefore, if
an employer alleges that the employee is not entitled to a receivable, it
cannot be the subject of a release. The Court of Appeals has a uniform
jurisprudence about the invalidity of release agreements in contradicting
defense evidence.
In release agreements which contain an amount, the debt is terminated
by performance in case the receivable is completely paid. On the other
hand, in cases of partial payment, a release is not valued by the Court of
Appeals, and it is considered that the payment effectuated has the same
effect as a receipt.
Finally, the effect of termination of a debt arising out of release
agreements which do not contain an amount should be mentioned. While
the Court of Appeals accepts that release agreements among merchants
should be clear and precise and it should be determined which debt they
are related to, it has not recognized the fact that they do not contain an
amount as reason for invalidation. However, it is not possible to resolve
the problem in a similar way in labor law. Taking into consideration that