Employment contracts with a fixed-term are a valuable instrument with respect to labor laws in many countries. Over time, many firms in Türkiye have begun using this type of employment contract as a way to circumvent the grant of various legal rights that come with indefinite term contracts. Issues with the application of regulation persist despite the numerous court decisions and attempts to stop the usage of fixed-term contracts to serve purposes other than those that they are intended to serve.

Due to the problems mentioned above, firms that have an actual need for fixed-term contracts to be applied to personnel often face problems resulting from the incorrect interpretation of the situation.

It is discussed in the decision with the number 2009/11728 E of the 9th Law Department of Court of Appeals if apologia is mandatory in case of a termination with a good cause by the employee. This is significantly important in the reemployment lawsuits brought by the employee who is terminated with a good cause by the employer. As it is known, the termination with good cause because of the employee behaviours is invalid unless an apologia is required from the employee. It is open to arguments if the same should be applied in the terminations with good cause. This decision which is being discussed set forth with a legal point of view, that apologia is not necessary in terminations with good cause. However an anectode should be stated here, in reemployment lawsuits brought on terminations with good cause, courts generally come to a decision that the good cause as the reason of the termination cannot be a cause but a valid reason for the termination, therefore the reemployment requests must be rejected. At this point, if the reason of the termination is accepted as a valid reason instead of a cause, then it will be a problem for the employer not to require an apologia. Therefore, it is recommended to record an apologia under any circumstance.

Daily Indemnity

The terms Travel Allowance and Daily Indemnity are usually mixed in our legislation. There are significant differences between them, besides, it is known that the social security premiums are deducted from the travel allowance whereas the daily indemnities are not questioned in social security premiums. Please see below the related articles of Mr.Resul Kurt and  Mr.Mehmet Maç.

As it can be referred from being involved in the 24th article about the indiscriminatenesses of the social security commission, mainly the daily indemnities are not an allowance for the employees but an expense for business. However, on the condition that the indemnities are paid as a lump sum under the name of daily indemnity rather than promoted real travel expenses and that they are economized by the employee, they can be considered as benefit and allowance. The amounts that exceed the legal limits are subject to the taxed wage payment.

Labor Law Numbered 4857

CHAPTER 1 "General Provisions"

- Purpose and scope

ARTICLE 1 - The purpose of this Act is to regulate the working conditions and work-related rights and obligations of employers and employees working under an employment contract.

Apart from those cited in Article 4, this Act shall apply to all the establishments and their employers, employer's representatives, and employees, irrespective of the subject matter of their activities.

Establishments, employers, employer's representatives, and employees shall be subject to this Act irrespective of the date of the notification to be made to the regional directorate of labor under Article 3.