Employment

 1.         Introduction The concept of garden leave is not a familiar concept to Turkish labor law as the legislation does not regulate this concept explicitly. The employers however in practice might have the need to make use of this concept for various reasons. Below we first introduce the concept of garden leave in general and then examine this concept under Turkish labor law. 2.         The Concept of Garden Leave The garden leave is a debated matter under labor law. By rule employment agreements executed between the employer and the employee can be terminated with a notice given to the other party. On the other hand there are certain distinct situations where the employee spends the notice away from work, though by rule employee is supposed to be working during notice period. So the concept of the garden leave pertains to notice period practices. The garden leave refers to the period during which employees spend their notice period away from the workplace, despite the employment relationship still being alive (i.e. there is no resignation or dismissal or mutual separation). During that period employees are not required to be present and working in the workplace, but still remain on the payroll. So instead of working in an active way, the employees remain passive and only receive salary for that period. The concept of garden leave is developed further to the need that arises in certain situations for keeping employees away from workplace due to a myriad of reasons. For instance the employer resorts to garden leave when there is a legitimate concern that the employee who has been or has given notice might disrupt the peace in the workplace. In the same vein employer might have doubts about receiving due performance from the employee who has been or has given notice and therefore prefers to just keep that employee away from work stream. Garden leave is frequently exercised as a part of internal investigations as well. Indeed the subject of the investigation could be put on garden leave during the course of the investigation with a view to ensure that the investigation proceeds in an effective and undisrupted way. In such cases the main concern is that the subject of the investigation could get in the way of the investigators or even endeavors to destroy evidence of wrongdoing. So in general garden leave is a precaution that is taken to eliminate various undesired possibilities that might realize if employee is allowed in the workplace and allowed to keep working. 3.         The Notion of Garden Leave under Turkish Labor Law Below we examine the notion of garden leave under Turkish labor law. We will start with examining the notion of garden leave in terms of present Turkish labor law legislation and then elaborate on practices that can be adopted as alternatives to garden leave under Turkish law. Lastly, we will explain the possible consequences of imposing garden leave under Turkish law. 3.1.      In Terms of Present Legislation The concept of garden leave is not regulated under Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 and under any other labor law legislation. In other words, Turkish labor law does not grant an explicit right on the employers to exercise garden leave. Therefore, suspending the employee by granting garden leave would mean creating a whole new labor law practice that cannot be deduced from any labor law regulations even by making far-fetched interpretations. That being said, there is no explicit rule under Turkish law that prohibits use of the notion of garden leave if both parties, i.e. the employer and the employee, agree on this notion. This agreement can be executed as part of the employment agreement or a separate agreement. However, for evidentiary purposes, such agreement must be in writing; otherwise, it would be difficult to prove existence of the agreement on garden leave in a possible dispute. Consequently, although Turkish law does not explicitly regulate the notion of garden leave, it does not explicitly restrict its use if both parties agree on it. 3.2.      Practices as an Alternative to Garden Leave under Turkish Law As explained above, Turkish law does not explicitly restrict use of the concept of garden leave if both parties agree on it. Therefore, it is possible to provide a provision in the employment agreement or execute a stand-alone agreement regarding the garden leave. In certain cases the company directives positively regulates the concept of garden leave and this could entitle the employer to use the concept of garden leave in certain cases. That being said, there is an alternative practice that can be used, instead of garden leave under Turkish law. If the concept of garden leave is not regulated under the company directives and/or the employee's employment agreement, but the employer still wishes to cut the employee's ties with the company for a certain period of time, the employer could consider offering the employee to grant paid leave during this process without deducting these "used leave days" from the employee's annual paid leave entitlements. It must be noted that the employee's consent to such practice is a must. Because without the consent, it could be seen as executing "garden leave" under the guise of "granting leave", which could, as explained below, expose the employer to unilateral termination of the employee along with compensation claims connected thereto. 3.3.      Consequences of Imposing Garden Leave under Turkish Law There might be severe consequences of imposing garden leave on an employee despite the concept of garden leave not being regulated in the company directives and the employment agreement under Turkish law. Considering the Turkish labor courts' tendency to favor the employee vis-à-vis the employer, due to Turkish labor law's motto to protect the weak, imposing garden leave on an employee could be labeled as an unfair and unwarranted treatment and also as violation of the employee's constitutional freedom of work due to having no legal ground in the legislation and case law, as explained above. This could give way to the interpretation that the employer de facto terminated employment under the guise of garden leave. Besides that such a practice of the employer could justify "for cause unilateral termination" of the relevant employee due to being "scapegoated" with no concrete proof, especially in cases where this practice is done due to an ongoing internal investigation. This could bring a non-pecuniary compensation claim based on the distress suffered. Therefore it is advisable for the employers not to take the risk of facing these chain reactions. 4.         Conclusion As explained above, although Turkish law does not explicitly regulate the notion of garden leave, it does not explicitly restrict its use if both parties agree on it. Moreover, the company directives may provide certain provisions regarding the concept of garden leave. But if the company directives and employment agreement does not regulate the concept of garden leave at all, the employer could consider offering the employee to grant paid leave during this process without deducting these "used leave days" from the employee's annual paid leave entitlements, provided that the employee has consented so. Imposition of garden leave on an employee has severe consequences under Turkish law such as unilateral termination of the employment agreement by the employee and claims for compensation of non-pecuniary damages, etc. Authors: Gönenç Gürkaynak, Esq., Tolga Uluay and A. Bahadır Erkan of ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (First published by Mondaq on March 6, 2019)

Working Arrangements for Non-Resident Foreign Companies' Turkey Operations Conducted through Local Individuals Introduction In our globalized world where trade has no borders, it is a usual practice for companies to conduct operations in different countries, including Turkey. Some foreign companies prefer having an establishment in Turkey, such as a local subsidiary company, while conducting their operations in Turkey, whereas some foreign companies prefer to stay as non-resident in Turkey and conduct their operations in Turkey through local individuals. The main reason for companies choosing the latter may be that the works that needs to be performed in Turkey may require only a few individuals, thus having an establishment for such a small business may be considered as a burden for the company. In this article, some of the commonly preferred working arrangements used by non-resident foreign companies for their operations in Turkey conducted through local individuals are explained. Commonly Preferred Working Arrangements (1) Direct Employment by Foreign Company The most straightforward working arrangement used by non-resident foreign companies for their operations in Turkey conducted through local individuals is execution of an employment agreement between the local individual and the foreign company, i.e. direct employment by foreign company. There is no legal provision under Turkish labor law that prevents a foreign company from executing an employment agreement with an employee for performance of certain works in Turkey. Having the employee under the payroll of the foreign company while having her/him stayed in Turkey is possible to the extent that regulations of the country where the company is established allows to do so. However, when in such a case, the employee cannot benefit any advantage or securities provided by Turkish Social Security Institution ("SSI") as she/he will not be registered as an employee (insured) with SSI. For this employee to be able to benefit from medical care services in Turkey, there is a specific procedure to complete. The employee should first obtain a document, evidencing her/his revenue from the respective country's authorized body and convey it to public bodies authorized by SSI in Turkey. Then, SSI determines the amount of premium to be paid for providing general health insurance and herewith the employee may benefit the health insurance. The possibility of direct employment by foreign company must be examined in light of the scenario where a dispute arises between the parties. In case a dispute arises between the parties in the future and the employee initiates a lawsuit against the employer (foreign company) before Turkish courts, two issues are of significance: (i) the question of whether Turkish courts have jurisdiction to hear such a case and (ii) the question of which law will be applicable to the employment agreement. Article 6(1) of Labor Courts Law No. 7036 ("Law No. 7036") provides that in addition to the courts of the employer's residence, the courts where the work is being performed have jurisdiction to hear the disputes connected to labor relationships. In case of direct employment by foreign company, the employee will perform the work in Turkey. Therefore, if the employee initiates a lawsuit against the employer (foreign company) before the courts where the employee performs the work, i.e. a Turkish court, based on Article 6(1) of Law No. 7036, the court will conclude that it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. In other words, Turkish courts will have jurisdiction in a possible lawsuit that may be initiated by the employee against the employer in case of direct employment by foreign company. After establishing its jurisdiction, Turkish court will determine the applicable law to the employment agreement for resolution of the dispute. The applicable law to agreements containing a foreign element, such as the employment agreement to be executed between the employee and the foreign company, is determined pursuant to the provisions of Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 ("Law No. 5718"). Article 27(1) of Law No. 5718 allows parties to choose the applicable law to their employment agreement. Therefore the employee and the foreign company can choose the applicable law to the employment agreement with a choice of law clause. That being said, such a choice is respected "as long as the minimal protection that is provided by the mandatory provisions of the law of the employee's habitual work place are reserved". Thus mandatory provisions of the law of the employee's habitual work place are seen as the "minimum protection". Based on these it can be concluded that even if the parties chooses the applicable law to the employment agreement in case of direct employment by foreign company, the minimum protection provided by the mandatory provisions of Turkish labor law must be regarded as a benchmark since these will be seen as the "minimum standards" that cannot be circumvented with the choice of law. Considering that almost all provisions of Turkish labor law are deemed mandatory in nature, practically Turkish labor law will be applied to the employment agreement. Article 27(2) of Law No. 5718 provides that "In cases where the parties have not designated a law, the law of the habitual work place of the employee shall govern the employment agreement." Pursuant to this provision, in case the parties do not choose the applicable law to their employment agreement in case of direct employment by foreign company, Turkish labor law as the law of the habitual work place of the employee will be applied by Turkish courts. As a result, it can be concluded that in practice, Turkish courts will apply Turkish labor law to the employment agreement in a possible lawsuit that may be initiated by the employee against the foreign company in case of direct employment by foreign company. (2) Liaison Office Another working arrangement used by non-resident foreign companies for their operations in Turkey conducted through local individuals is establishment of a liaison office in Turkey and employ the relevant individual through the liaison office. A company established under the laws of a foreign country may open a liaison office in Turkey upon the conditions that; (i) all expenses of the liaison office will be covered by the foreign currency brought from abroad, (ii) no commercial activity will be undertaken by the liaison office, and (iii) the liaison office will not generate any profits. In case a foreign company establishes a liaison office in Turkey, the relevant liaison office should be registered both with the tax office and SSI. Below elaborates on liaison offices under Turkish law. Companies established in accordance with the laws of foreign countries are authorized to open liaison offices in Turkey upon the permit granted by the Ministry of Economy, General Directorate of Incentive Implementation and Foreign Investments ("FIGD") located in Ankara. Liaison offices established in Turkey cannot engage in commercial activities. Liaison offices may engage in the certain activities such as (i) market research, (ii) providing technical support (providing trainings and technical support to distributors and supporting services to manufacturing suppliers in order to increase their quality standards), (iii) advertisement of products and services of the foreign company, (iv) operation as a regional management office for the foreign company (providing coordination and management services regarding activities such as preparation of investment and management strategies, planning, advertisement, sale, services following sale, brand management, financial management, technical support, research and development, external supply, testing of newly developed products, laboratory services, research and analysis, training of the employees), and (v) representation and accommodation (representation of the foreign company before relevant institutions and at relevant organizations, coordination and organization of the business contacts of the foreign company's authorized persons in Turkey, answering the office use needs of such persons). Liaison offices, in their first applications, are granted operation permits for 3 years at most. For term extensions, liaison offices are required to make an application before the expiration of their permissions. However, the permits obtained for market research or promotion of products or services of the foreign company cannot be extended. Liaison offices are not allowed to have a share capital. Liaison offices are represented by individual(s) to be appointed via a certification of authorization issued in accordance with the respective jurisdiction of the foreign parent company. (3) Contractor / Service Provider Execution of a service agreement with an individual or a company is another working arrangement used by non-resident foreign companies for their operations in Turkey conducted through local individuals. Below elaborates on these two options. (a) Service Agreement with an Individual It is possible to execute a service agreement with an individual for the performance of the works to be conducted in Turkey for the foreign company's Turkey operations. The most important point regarding this working arrangement is that the individual, who is party to the service agreement, is not an employee of the foreign company; she/he is an independent contractor who performs the services requested by the foreign company in return for a service fee. In other words, there is not employment relationship between this individual and the foreign company and the fee received by this individual is only service fee, not wage. Therefore, rules of Turkish labor law will not be applicable in case of execution of a service agreement with an individual. (b) Service Agreement with a Company It is also possible to execute a service agreement with a company for the performance of the works to be conducted in Turkey for the foreign company's Turkey operations. In this case, the service provider company will provide the services specified in the agreement in return for a service fee. Surely the service provider company will employ some employees for realization of the services. However, there will be no employment relationship between these employees and the foreign company. In other words, these employees will remain as employees of the service provider company. Conclusion As explained above, there exist different working arrangements used by non-resident foreign companies for their operations in Turkey conducted through local individuals. While the working arrangement of having a liaison office requires having an establishment in Turkey, other working arrangements, i.e. direct employment by foreign company and execution of service agreement with an individual or company, do not require any establishment. The foreign companies are considered as employer in cases of direct employment by foreign company and establishment of liaison office, whereas in case of execution of service agreement the foreign company is only party to the agreement and not have the status of employer. All of these working arrangements have advantages and disadvantages compared to each other and choosing one depends on the specific needs and commercial discretion of the relevant foreign company. Authors: Gönenç Gürkaynak, Esq., Tolga Uluay and Bahadır Erkan, ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law (First published by Mondaq on May 2, 2018)

Law No. 7036 Code of Labor Courts (‘Law’) published in the Official Gazette No. 30221 dated October 25, 2017; introduced fundamental changes in the settlement of labor disputes and abrogated the previous law on the subject Law No. 5521. The radical changes implemented with the Law No. 7036 are summarized below. Mediation as a Pre-condition of Litigation The most important and remarkable change brought to our system by law is the regulation of mediation as a matter of trial. Mediation is only adopted as a preliminary condition before legal action in the selected type of issues noted in the Article 3 of the Law; ‘application to mediation is a pre-condition for cases dependent on individual or collective bargaining employment contracts or cases of employee or employer claims and compensation demands and for cases of employee reinstitution.’ Unlike other articles of the Law that are immediately enforced, this relevant Article 3, will enter into force on January 1, 2018. Therefore as of January 1, 2018, it is compulsory to first apply for mediation before filing for a litigation regarding such employer-employee disputes. It is also understood that mediation is not a mandatory requirement in cases of pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation claims or the filings for their detection or recourse based on work accidents or work-related sicknesses. Mediation Expenses If a party fails to attend the first mediation meeting without a valid excuse, the party not participating in such meeting will be held entirely responsible for the cost of proceedings even if the issue is partially or completely resolved in that party’s favor. If the parties agree upon at the end of the mediation, the mediation fee will be paid equally between the parties unless otherwise agreed upon. In this case, the fee may not be less than the two-hour fee set out in the Mediation Minimum Wage Tariff. In case the parties cannot reach an agreement at the end of the mediation, the parties fail to attend the meetings or the parties fail to reach an agreement after discussions taking less than two hours, the initial two-hour fee will be paid by the State Treasury in accordance with Mediation Minimum Wage Tariff. If the parties fail to reach agreement at the end of discussions taking more than two hours, the wage for the portion exceeding the initial two hours shall be covered equally by the parties again in accordance with the Mediation Minimum Wage Tariff, unless otherwise agreed upon. Concluding Mediation The mediation shall be concluded within three (3) weeks; however, if compelling reasons exist, this process can be extended for a maximum of one (1) additional week. If mediator's involvement resolves the dispute among parties, then the same dispute can no longer be litigated before Courts. In case such agreement cannot be reached via mediation, the parties’ rights to sue are reserved. Litigation Procedures and Available Appeal With the entry into force of the Law, the application periods for appeal are also changed and it is referred that the appellate submissions will be made in accordance with Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure. For this reason, the appeal time limit imposed earlier as eight (8) days is now abolished and the appeal application period to the District Court of Appeals is set forth as two (2) weeks from the date of service of notification of the First Instance Labor Courts’ decision to the relevant parties. The application process for further appeal to Supreme Court of Appeals is also set forth as two (2) weeks from the date of service of notification of the District Court of Appeals’ decision to the relevant parties. Another important change brought by the Law is that the appeal before Supreme Court of Appeals will not be an option for some certain decisions noted at Article 8 of the Law. The only way to apply legal remedy regarding such decisions is the District Court of Appeals. Aforementioned judgments that are not subject to appeal before Supreme Court of Appeals are listed below: a)      Judgements regarding cases of objection to termination notification pursuant to Article 20 of Labor Law No.4857; b)      Judgements regarding cases of cancellation of disciplinary penalties executed against the employees in accordance with collective labor agreements or workplace regulations; c)      Judgments subject to Union and Collective Labor Law No.6356 in cases of: Unfair termination of employment contracts of workplace union representatives by the employer; Disputes regarding whether the workplace match the conditions sought for being subject to collective bargaining agreements; Disputes regarding application commentary of a collective bargaining agreement in force; Disputes regarding the determination of the lawfulness of a strike or lock-out. d)     Judgments subject to Civil Servants Unions and Collective Bargaining Law No.4688 in cases of: On the issues of liability of the board members of union branches, unions or confederations in cases of incompliance to general assembly timing or voting quorum; In cases of unlawful rejection of union membership applications. Statute of Limitations Finally, amendments are also made in the Labor Law No. 4857 with the Article 15 of the Law. The scope of this change is the statute of limitations. Regardless of which law is applicable provided that the issue is subject to an employment contract; for paid annual leave compensations and following listed claims, the statute of limitations is set as five (5) years: a)      Severance compensation; b)      Notification compensation; c)      Compensation regarding acts of bad faith; d)     Compensations regarding employment contract termination based on the violation of the principle of equal treatment.

The employees are entitled to terminate their employment contracts, whether the contract is for a definite or indefinite period, before its expiry or without having to observe specified notice periods in case of serious and important reasons determined in the Article 24 of the Labor Law No. 4857 (the “Labor Law”). The fulfillment of the conditions specified in the relevant Article is not sufficient for the employee to terminate the contract and the employee should also notify the employer regarding such termination. Although there is no statutory provision for the form of termination notification, the precedent of Appellate Court decisions on the subject indicate that the notice of termination should be made in writing and served through the notary public and the employee should indicate the reasons for his/her termination clearly and in a reasonable manner. Should the employment contracts of the employees are terminated by employees under the following circumstances, the employers are required to make severance compensation payments to the employees, provided that the period of the employment with such employer continued at least for one (1) year.  The reasons for just cause termination of the employment contracts by employees are classified in three (3) main headings and explained below in further detail: I. Health Reasons: It should be noted that the validity of termination due to the health reasons mentioned hereunder are dependent on the medical determination of such status. As per the precedent of the Appellate Court, employees shall obtain a health committee report from one of the Fully Equipped General/State Hospitals, Institutes of Forensic Sciences or University Hospitals in order to determine and prove whether they have any illnesses that may prevent them from work by taking into consideration of the workplace features, age of employee, working conditions, employee’s job and employment period as a whole. Termination based on health reasons which are not medically determined would not be deemed as rightful termination in accordance with such sample decisions of the Appellate Court. a) If the performance of the work stipulated in the employment contract endangers the employee’s health or life for a reason which was impossible to foresee at the time the contract was concluded; The danger which is mentioned above should be related to the nature of the business/work and should not be remedied, otherwise, such termination will not be deemed as rightful termination. To give an example from the precedent of Appellate Courts for implementation of the Article 24/1-(a) of the Labor Law: If the employer changes or offers to change the position/job/task assigned to or the workplace of the employee so that he/she is no longer affected by the source of problem following the determination of such health problem, the employee's opportunity to terminate the contract on a rightful basis due to health reasons may become unjustified. Subject to the Appellate Court decisions, the danger that is imposed by the work may not need to be fatal and it is sufficient that there is some danger to the health and/or life of the employee. b) If the employer or another employee who is constantly near the employee and with whom he/she is in direct contact with is suffering from an infectious disease or a disease that is may affect the work that the employee is performing. The precedent of the Appellate Court notes that in case the disease is noninfectious or infection risk is controlled with medical interventions such as vaccination, the relevant termination with such cause will not be deemed rightful. II. Events Contrary to Ethical Rules and To Goodwill and Others: a) If the employer has deceived the employee  when executing the employment contract by misrepresentation on essential parts of the employment contract or by giving information or making statements which do not represent the truth Within the scope of the aforementioned provision, it is crucial to state that the termination of the employment contract by an employee would be deemed rightful termination only if an employment contract signed by an employee since he/she has been deceived by the employer. In other words, misrepresentation should be on the essential parts of the employment contract and such misrepresentation should have an impact on the decision for concluding such contract on employees’ behalf. Furthermore, the incorrect information referred to in this provision shall be regarding the working conditions, the location of the workplace and/or nature of the work etc. in order to drive/motivate the employee to conclude a contract by the employer. For example; in cases where there is a discrepancy between the employers’ initial commitment for salaries or benefits and the ones that are actually paid or provided, the employee would have a right to terminate such contract on a rightful basis. b) If the employer; makes statements or acts in any way, which is damaging to the honor and integrity of the employee or of any member of his/her family thereof; or sexually harasses the employee The statements mentioned in the first part of the aforementioned provision damaging to the honor and integrity of the employee should be evaluated separately for each case based on the social situations and sense of decency of both sides. It is sought that the acts and/or behaviors of the employer should damage the honor and integrity of the employee.  Personal insults or use of profanity are examples of such actions. It should be noted that criticism on a particular area of expertise within the scope of constructive and objective measures and/or criticism regarding performance or nonconformity acts of the employee is not deemed as an act and/or behaviors that damage the honor and integrity of the employee. According to the Appellate Court decisions; during discussions for a salary raise, statements of the employer to his/her employees such as "why should I give him/her more money, he/she is not performing well’  would be deemed an employer’s performance criticism and does not grant a right to terminate employment contract with just cause by employee. Furthermore, another employee’s statements or acts, which damage the honor and integrity of an employee or of any member of his/her family, shall not grant a right to terminate the employment contract with just cause by such employee. However, the employer shall take precautionary measures to stop such harassment following notification by the employee to fulfill the supervision obligation of the employer. c) If the employer; untruthfully alleges the employee or of any member of his/her family thereof for committing a crime; or motivates, provokes or tags along the employee or of any member of his/her family thereof for an illegal act; or commits a crime that is punishable by prison sentence against the employee or of any member of his/her family thereof; or assaults or threatens the employee or of any member of his/her family thereof. According to the Appellate Court decisions, the assault occurs in the form of a verbal threat, insult or acts of battery. Discussions or disagreements that do not reach the level of assault are not deemed as a rightful ground for termination. However, the criminal elements of felony assault or threat are not sought for the justification of such ground for termination. The concept of the family mentioned in the aforementioned provision shall be interpreted widely. There is importance whether the acts of the employer against the employee or a member of his family occurs at the workplace or not. The employer’s acts of encouraging, provoking or pushing to commit an illegal action may be exampled as asking to give a false testimony or forging documents. It should also be noted that while the offense of the employer against the employee or a member of his family should be punishable by a prison sentence, the employer need not be imprisoned because of such offense.  An example of this type of act is if the employer injures an employee or one of his family members. There is no clear precedent for the definition of the acts damaging honor and dignity, however, an example may be employer’s accusation towards an employee for theft. d) If t employee is sexually harassed by another employee or by a third party at the workplace and no precautionary measures are taken by the employer although notified by the employee. Two conditions shall be met for this provision to be used for rightful termination by the employee, first, the act of harassment should take place at the workplace and second, the employer shall not take precautionary measures to stop such harassment following notification by the employee. Even if an employer is not the source of the harassment acts, the employer will become liable for such acts within the scope of the obligations for protection of employees as part of the framework of the employment contract. To give examples of precautions according to aforementioned provision, the employer may warn the harassing employee or third party may replace the victim employees or the harassing employees’ workplaces or may terminate the employment contract of the harassing employee etc. e) If the employer fails to calculate the accrual or payment of the employee’s salary in accordance with the law or the terms of employment contract; The salary referred in this provision shall not be considered as a monetary remuneration rights of the employee only, it also contains other contractual and legal rights of the employee which may or may not be measured in monetary terms. If payment is not made on the specified day as per to employment contract, it is considered to be justified reason for an employee within the scope of this paragraph. However, in the absence of such payment, employer's purpose of avoiding to make payment is sought; explainable and reasonable causes such as being unaware of such payment and delay in the wire transfer would not be deemed as a fault of the employer. According to the Appellate Court’s precedent, employees including but limited to the ones who are transferred from premium work to non-premium work without his/her approval; who has not received any bonuses; whose salaries are lower than their colleagues; who are uninsured or whose insurance premiums are not paid completely may have a rightful termination right as per to such provision. f) If the salary is to be paid in return of pieces of work or task completion basis and if the employer fails to provide the employee sufficient pieces to finish or tasks to complete and/or fails to compensate the difference or working conditions determined are not complied with. The employer shall compensate the difference in pay to an employee in case of such shortcomings for delegation and otherwise, the employee has a right to termination on a rightful basis within the scope of this provision. If the employer changes or hardens the predetermined working conditions with regards to the nature of business without obtaining approval of the employee, the employee should also have the rightful termination rights awarded within the scope of such provision. III. Force majeure In cases of force majeure in the workplace where the employee is employed that involves the stop of work for over a week. If the stoppage of work lasts for a week or more in case of force majeure event, the employer has to pay at least half of the fees of the employees per each day. After one week, the employer has no obligation to pay a fee to any employee but the employee’s termination right arises. The force majeure is an unforeseen, unavoidable external event. Technical failures, natural disasters, and legal proceedings by the administration which linked with workplace are seen as force majeure events. However, this provision shall not be applicable in the events of loss of work caused by employer’s own failure or other situations, tagging employers’ liability such as failure of maintenance or repair of machines, lesser work available or stoppage of the work for seasonal reasons, stoppage for overstock etc. Period for Exercising the Rightful Immediate Termination by Employee According to the Article 26 of the Labor Law, right of termination of the employment contract by employee relying on immoral behavior and good will stated in Article 24, may not be used after six (6) days from the day on which employee learns such behavior of the employer, an in any case after one (1) year as of the occurrence of acts or events.  However, the one (1) year period shall not apply in case the employee enjoys any material advantage. If the employee does not terminate his employment contract within the stipulated period of time, any such termination following the limited time period would be classified as unjustified termination. The time specified here is not time statute of limitation but is the period of the right to be consumed. Therefore, the Courts will take such limit it into consideration even without any motion by the employer.