322 / 522
to an unlawful act
1
. The precedents of the Court of Cassation vary on
this issue. In one of its judgments, the Court rejected the view that the
collective dismissals violating Art. 29 of the Act are null and void, by
stating that “
…the sanction for the violation of the rules concerning
collective dismissals is the administrative monetary fine…
”
2
. Another
judgment of the Court accepted that along with the administrative
sanctions, the termination of the labor contracts of the employees who
were subject to collective dismissal shall be deemed as null and void:
“
… The fact that the violation of the collective dismissal rules is sanc-
tioned by administrative monetary fines does not mean that the termi-
nations are valid…
”
3
. Therefore, in the event that a collective dismissal
does not fulfill the obligations set under Art. 29 of the Act, it may be
argued that the terminations are null and void, and that the employer
must pay the administrative fine.
Conclusion
In the light of the foregoing, it may be concluded that (i) in order
for a lay-off to be considered as a collective dismissal, the qualitative
and quantitative conditions that are specified under Art. 29 of the Act
must be met; (ii) the employer who intends to collectively lay-off its
employees in line with Art. 29 of the Act must notify the relevant
authorities and the employees of the collective dismissal. The notice
periods for employees commence following the expiry of 30 days as of
the notification of the collective dismissal to the relevant authorities.
(iii) the obligation of the employer to make payments that the employ-
ee is entitled to due to the termination of its employment contract
remains valid; (iv) administrative monetary fines apply for each
employee who was dismissed in breach of Art. 29 of the Act. However,
payment of these administrative fines does not necessarily deem the
collective dismissal as valid. In the event that the obligations are not
fulfilled, the termination may be deemed to be null and void in addi-
tion to the payment of the administrative fine.
306
NEWSLETTER 2015
1
Sarper Süzek
, Labor Law, Istanbul 2013, p. 621.
2
Court of Cassation 9
th
Civil Chamber Decision dated 26.01.2004 and numbered 1320/1174
(www.kazanci.com).
3
Court of Cassation 9
th
Civil Chamber Decision dated 19.10.2009 and numbered 37726/27756
(Süzek, p. 621-622).