- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
THE CURRENT APPROACH OF THE ISTANBUL REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL (Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 31st Civil Chamber, Decision dated 20.03.2024, File No. 2024/249, Decision No. 2024/425)
A. INTRODUCTION
The increasing impact of professional social media platforms on working life has brought with it the question of how employees’ conduct in digital environments should be evaluated under labour law. In particular, whether the “open to work” status used on professional career platforms such as LinkedIn may be regarded by employers as a breach of the employee’s duty of loyalty has recently become one of the notable areas of debate.
The 2024 decision of the 31st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal contains significant findings regarding the criteria under which employees’ activities on digital career platforms may be assessed in the context of termination of employment contracts.
B. SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE
In the case at hand, the employer considered the employee’s update of their LinkedIn profile to “open to work” status and indication that they were open to new job opportunities as conduct undermining the employee’s loyalty to the employer and negatively affecting the company’s reputation; on these grounds, the employer terminated the employee’s employment contract. The employee, on the other hand, claimed that the employment contract had been terminated without a just or valid reason and filed a reinstatement claim.
C. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
The Court of First Instance, after evaluating together the evidence contained in the case file and the witness statements, did not find the employer’s grounds for termination sufficient. In its decision, the Court stated that it had been established that other employees working at the same workplace had also used the “open to work” status on the LinkedIn platform; nevertheless, the employment contracts of those employees had not been terminated and some had even received promotions. In addition, the Court noted that no evidence had been presented demonstrating a decline in the claimant’s work performance, a failure to perform work diligently, or any concrete harm caused to the employer.
The Court further emphasized that the mere fact that an employee is seeking employment opportunities or indicating openness to career opportunities cannot, by itself, be regarded as a circumstance rendering the continuation of the employment relationship impossible. Accordingly, it was concluded that the termination carried out by the employer was neither proportionate nor justified; therefore, the Court ruled in favour of the claimant on the grounds that the employer had failed to prove that the employment contract had been terminated for a valid reason.
D. THE APPROACH OF THE REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL
The 31st Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal also found the assessment of the Court of First Instance to be in compliance with the law and dismissed the employer’s appeal on the merits. The Court stated that the Court of First Instance had correctly evaluated the evidence, properly characterized the dispute, and accurately applied the relevant legal rules.
This approach constitutes an important judicial assessment to the effect that an employee’s use of the “open to work” status on the LinkedIn platform cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for termination. The decision demonstrates that employees’ activities on digital career platforms cannot be directly interpreted as a breach of the duty of loyalty and that employers must put forward more concrete facts in order to exercise their right of termination.
E. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DECISION FROM A LABOUR LAW PERSPECTIVE
The decision is significant in that it demonstrates that the use of professional social media in modern working life is regarded as an ordinary and legitimate practice. The approach adopted by the Regional Court of Appeal reveals that employees’ pursuit of new career opportunities or efforts to increase their professional visibility cannot, by themselves, be interpreted as disloyalty toward the employer.
Another noteworthy aspect of the decision is the emphasis placed on the principle of proportionality. The Court accepted that a merely hypothetical loss of trust would not be sufficient for termination and that the employer must demonstrate that the employment relationship had been concretely harmed. Furthermore, the absence of any different treatment with respect to other employees who engaged in the same conduct also played a role in the assessment; this point was considered important in terms of the employer’s obligation to treat employees equally.
In this respect, the decision indicates that employers must act more cautiously when evaluating employees’ activities on digital platforms. In particular, conduct that has become an ordinary part of modern working life, such as the use of professional social media, is accepted by judicial authorities as grounds for termination only within limited circumstances.
F. CONCLUSION
This decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal clearly demonstrates that employees indicating that they are open to career opportunities on professional social networking platforms such as LinkedIn cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for termination.
According to the decision, abstract allegations of loss of trust alone are not sufficient for an employer to exercise its right of termination. It must be demonstrated that the employment relationship has been concretely harmed, that the employee has breached their obligations, and that the termination was proportionate.
This approach shows that digital career platforms are accepted as a natural element of modern working life and that employees’ career mobility is evaluated within a broader sphere of protection under labour law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
