NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

304 NEWSLETTER 2019 exemption regulation regarding the right of the employer to terminate the employment contract for just cause for reasons regarding the behavior or performance of the employee, apart from the conditions stipulated under Article 25/II. The Preamble of the Decision In the preamble of the Decision, it is underlined that the relation between Article 19 and Article 25 of the Labor Act must be evaluated, as Article 25 of the Labor Act that regulates the right of immediate termination of the employment contract by the employer for just cause does not refer to Article 19, which regulates the procedure of termina- tion. According to the preamble of the Decision, • Article 19 applies to the cases of termination for just rea- son that are regulated under Article 18 of the Labor Act. As Article 19 regulates the procedure of periodical terminati - on , this provision cannot be interpreted that the employer is required to obtain the employee’s defense in any kind of termination. As Article 19 is clearly excluded in the last pa- ragraph of Article 25 of the Labor Act, it is a moot point to mention any obligation to obtain the defense of the employee in terminations for just cause. • The reason why only Article 25/II is exempted in Article 19 is that both of these provisions regulate reasons for termi- nation of the employment contract due to behavior of the employee. • The purpose of obtaining the defense of the employee befo- re termination is to notify the employee of the termination reasons so that the employee may affect the employer’s will to terminate. However, in the case of absenteeism of the employee, requesting the defense of the employee is of no importance, neither for the employee, nor for the employer. Absenteeism of the employee that exceeds the notification period by six weeks, is a factual situation, and obtaining the defense of the employee has no purpose. Arguing that there