NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

293 LABOR LAW the employer reserves the right to change the place of work, and that an employee may be required to work in another office or location of the employer, if the need arises. Thus, the change of workplace may be made without the requirement for notification and written approval as stated in Article 22 of the Labor Law. Pursuant to the Court of Cassation, the authority to transfer granted to the employer is not unlimited, and it should be used objec- tively, and by complying with the rules of good faith. The employer should also prove the reason for the transfer in a possible dispute. 10 In other words, the change of the workplace should be a necessity for the continuation of the business. In cases where the employer reserves the right to change the place of work, the employer shall act in accordance with the rules of goodwill and good faith, shall not act arbitrarily, nor make decisions in a way that will harm the professional and private life of the employee, and in a minimum manner in accordance with the duty to protect the employee. The change in the workplace shall not aim to punish the employees, nor force them into termination. The implementation of the mobility clause in order to terminate the employment contract is an abuse of the employer’s right to manage. 11 In addition, pursuant to the Court of Cassation, the change of work- place should be a necessity, the situation of the employee shall not be worsened, and working conditions, such as transportation to the new workplace and lunches shall also be taken into consideration. 12 As well, the benefits to be gained by the employer due to the changes shall be commensurate with any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages suffered by the employee. As a result, mobility clauses, which are frequently encountered in working life, are considered valid if (i) the records of the workplace change and are not contrary to the mandatory rules, (ii) they do not contain general, intangible and unclear statements, (iii) the change is a requirement, (iv) they are enacted in accordance with the rules of good faith during the exercise of the authority, (v) they comply with the principle of equality, and (vi) and are not employed arbitrarily. 10 22 nd Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2017/11252, K. 2018/5151, 27.02.2018. 11 9 th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 2010/29128, K. 2012/37213, 12.11.2012. 12 9 th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E. 1988/2824, K. 1988/4094, 11.04.1988.