ABSTRACT
The need to consider the new procedure with a new employment relationship established in the postretirement period by liquidating the severance pay and unused annual leaves earned in the preretirement working period with all receivable items arising from the employment relationship that entitles the employee to retirement status and the obligation of the employer to pay the social insurance premium of the employee working in the postretirement period when rehiring workers who are entitled to retirement and terminating their employment contracts.
I. INTRODUCTION
With the recent regulations, the social security system and especially the concepts of retirement annuity and postretirement work, which are a fundamental part of this system, have become important issues that need to be investigated. The increase in the average human life expectancy, the positive effects of the technological era on labor productivity as well as the economic difficulties experienced on a national and international scale force people to work after retirement. With the regulations made in our country, it is important for both the national economy and the sustainability of the social security system that workers who have earned the right to retire contribute to employment after retirement. In this study, the opportunities and rights provided to workers who leave their jobs due to retirement and return to work will be examined.
II. RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES WHO LEAVE THEIR JOBS DUE TO RETIREMENT AND WORK AGAIN
At the point where the country’s economy has reached, the minimum starvation line is 14,025 TL and the poverty line for a family of 4, which includes food expenditures, clothing, housing (rent, electricity, water, fuel) transportation, education, health and similar needs, is in the range of 45,686.81 TL, and workers use the option of continuing their working life after retirement intensively today, as in the past, due to both economic and sociological factors1. The unfavorable economic opportunities provided to retirees in our country bring about the continuation of working life for workers who are legally entitled to retirement status. The continuation of the business life of the workers postretirement is not only a way preferred by the employees, but it is also a preferred option by the employers for the employees who have given their labor and experience to their work over time, to continue to use the knowhow they have acquired within the scope of their work and to fulfill their work in the order and discipline they have brought to that day, and to continue their business relations after the retirement of the employee. Apart from the employee and the employer, the continuation of the working life of the workers who are entitled to retirement is a process that is also demanded by the state and in this context, the employers are supported by the treasury regarding the work safety and the obligation of the employer to pay the related premiums.
Considering the population distribution in Turkey, the number of retired employees and middleaged people is undeniable. As an indicator of this, within the framework of the new regulations introduced within the scope of Provisional Article 95 added to the Social Insurances and Universal Health Insurance Law2 by the Law on the Amendment of the Social Insurances and Universal Health Insurance Law and the Decree Law No. 375 published in the Official Gazette No. 32121 on 03.03.20233 (“Law”), many workers have liquidated their employment contracts and terminated their employment relations by qualifying for retired pay. Workers who benefit from these regulations are reemployed and even continue to work uninterruptedly and continue to work with new employment relationships. In this context, it is clear that the regulation in Article 14/1,5 of the Law No. 1475 is not intended to actively terminate the working life of the employee, and that there will be no problem for the employee who meets the conditions regarding insurance and premiums to sign a contract in the field and under the conditions he wishes in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution by taking his seniority4 and this cannot be considered as an abuse of right5. The rights brought by this situation for the employee and the benefits provided for the employer will be discussed in this article in the light of the decisions of the Court of Cassation and doctrinal opinions.
A. Entitlement of Severance Pay
Severance Pay is a sum of money paid by the employer to the employee or his/ her heirs in proportion to the seniority of the employee, taking into account the wages and ancillary expenses earned by the employee in the last period, upon the termination of the employee’s employment contract for one of the reasons listed in the law and the completion of the minimum working period required by law6. Severance Pay, as regulated in Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 48577, will come into existence when the cases listed in the law occur. One of these cases is that the employee is entitled to severance pay without complying with the notice period as a result of the employee’s fulfillment of the conditions sought in the law in order to receive old age, disability, retirement pension, and the resignation petition to be submitted to the employer with the letter from the SSI stating that he meets the retirement criteria8.
Eligibility for old age pension and payment of severance pay, which is a special condition regulated by the law, is one of the reasons for termination, which comes into existence with the request of the employee and which the employer cannot evaluate spontaneously. It is quite easy to determine whether the conditions are complianced with the letter regarding retirement received by the employee from the SSI, and it is possible for the employee who compliances the conditions to be entitled to severance pay by completing the query in digital media and submitting it to the employer by the employee9. Termination of the employment contract on the grounds of retirement is a mandatory reason for termination that must be accepted by the employer. Upon submission of the document, the employee must be paid the severance rights to which he/she is entitled. However, in working life, it is seen that employers have different practices in terms of payment of severance pay.
1. Considerations in Severance Pay
It is important for the employer, as well as the employee, to pay the receivables of the employees who terminate their employment contracts due to retirement, in full, by liquidating the employment relationship that led to the retirement relationship by their employers. Otherwise, postponing the payment of the receivables arising from the previous employment relationship or partial payment of the severance pay by the employer by undercalculating the severance pay may cost the employer with higher payment costs that will not eliminate the working relationship subject to retirement.
The establishment of an employment relationship with the same employer or with a different employer as a result of the termination of the existing employment relations by the employee who is entitled to retirement status by resigning will not be considered as an abuse of right, and within the framework of Article 26 of the Turkish Code of Obligations10, it can be freely established by the parties as a new period within the legal limits subject to the principle of freedom of contract11. At this point, working with the same employer in a different line of business from the work subject to the retirement period or the same employer’s new employment relationship at a different workplace address, at a different wage than the wage previously paid, cannot be considered as a fundamental change. The fact that the employee who resigned by fulfilling the retirement conditions works in a different workplace cannot be considered as a breach of the noncompetition clause and cannot be subject to a lawsuit as a breach of the noncompetition clause, unless he/ she specifically uses the information regarding that workplace obtained from the same workplace.
Although the continuation of the retired employee in the same workplace with or without interruption in the same workplace constitutes a new employment relationship, working for the same employer within the scope of the same job description will not mean the inclusion of a trial period in the employment contract that the employee will establish with the same employer after retirement. As a matter of fact, in a decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it has been evaluated as an abuse of right by the employer to include a probationary period in the employment contract with an employee who has worked for years in the employer’s workplace in order to eliminate the rights of the employee and to include a probationary period in the employment contract by mentioning the existence of bad faith12.
WIn this context, it will be accepted as a process in accordance with the ordinary course of business for retired employees to enter a new working period by receiving severance payments. In the new period in which working retirees continue their business relations, as a result of leaving the job in a way to be entitled to severance pay, a second seniority receivable for the new working period may also be in question. There is no consensus in the Court of Cassation and the doctrine that the reason for termination of the employment contract, which entitles the employee to severance pay for the last termination of employment after retirement, is sufficient to entitle the employee to seniority in the postretirement period by making the reason for termination in the second period. In the case law of the Court of Cassation13, it is considered as an abuse of right that the termination relationship subject to severance pay entitling the employee to an oldage pension can be claimed separately for each year worked in different places after retirement14; while another opinion taken into consideration in the doctrine is that there is no obstacle for this in the legislation and that the employee can be entitled to severance pay separately for each period worked after retirement15.
The fact that employers lead workers to retire early with advance payments in order to prevent the employee’s severance pay receivables from being made as a lump sum payment in the future and prevent them from severance pay rights for the following period is a situation that causes significant financial losses for retired workers who work in the same place in the postretirement period. This situation is an important gap that contains a deficiency in the law and jurisprudence and this situation should be resolved reasonably for employers and employees.
In light of the information provided, it is clear that there are variables that are taken into account in the calculations in accordance with different criteria in the evaluation of severance payments that contain missing receivables in the event that the retired employee’s last job departure is in a way that qualifies for severance pay or in the payment of severance receivables arising from the employment contract subject to retirement.
2. Calculation of Liquidated Severance Pay
When we consider the employment relationship in which the pension receivable subject to seniority arises as the first period employment relationship and in the event that the retired worker’s receivables subject to severance pay are underpaid, it is an important issue in the calculation of severance pay if the retired worker is reemployed by the same employer after a period of time or continues to work in the same workplace without interruption. In the conditions where the employment relationship is terminated in a way to qualify for severance pay in the posretirement period, the intermittent periods are combined in the calculation of severance pay and the calculation is made over the total severance pay due. For this reason, in the termination of the employment contract of the employee entitled to severance pay, a separate seniority calculation is made for the employee working in the postretirement period. In this regard, the point that exists in the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation and which is taken into consideration is that the severance pay is calculated over the last wage paid to the employee after retirement for the employee who continues to work as a retired employee by combining the first period worked and the period worked after retirement, and the total amount of severance pay deserved for all intermittent periods is calculated. If there is a severance pay paid to the employee before the first retirement period, the severance pay amount calculated over the last wage paid to the employee is deducted from the severance pay amount in order not to cause double payment16.
According to the opinion in the doctrine17, which we also agree with, the issue to be taken into account in the calculation of the severance indemnity as a result of the employee leaving the job in a way to be entitled to severance pay in the second period is that it is necessary to make a payment for the first period without combining it with the previous period and to make a separate independent payment for the second period and to make a severance payment for the period worked after retirement. This is due to the termination of the employee who entered the retirement process by giving seniority to the employee in the post-retirement period and started working in the second period with or without a break in the postretirement period.
As a result, the most important issue to be considered by the employer for the employee who continues to work in the same workplace in the postretirement period is to make the severance payment earned for the first period of employment relationship subject to retirement in full, in the event that the employment contract is terminated in such a way as to be entitled to severance pay in the subsequent period of employment, when the severance payment for the second period is due as a result of the first period’s liquidation, it is imperative to prevent the intermittent or uninterrupted period from being combined with the first period and to prevent the severance pay from being multiplied by the total period worked over the wage paid in the previous period.
B. Entitlement to Annual Paid Leave
1. Conditions To Be Considered During Annual Paid Leave
The worker’s right to annual paid leave is an integral part of the right to rest, which is a social and economic right regulated in Article 50 of the Constitution. The right to annual paid leave aims to protect workers’ physical and mental health, rest, increase their motivation and work efficiency. The right to annual paid leave, on the one hand, enables the worker to exercise the right to rest defined in the Constitution, and on the other hand, it is a worker’s right based on the employer’s obligation to take care of the worker in this respect, which aims to ensure that the worker does not lose wages during the paid leave period18.
Article 53 of the Labor Law No. 4857 stipulates that the employee will be entitled to annual paid leave if he/ she has worked for at least one year, including the probationary period, since the day he/ she started working at the workplace, and paragraph 2 of the same article stipulates that the employee cannot waive his/ her right to annual paid leave. As a matter of fact, in a decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it has been ruled that annual paid leave is a constitutional right to rest and for this reason, the employee cannot convert the right to annual paid leave into wages and waive this right during the continuation of the employment contract19. Although it is regulated that the employee must use his/ her annual paid leave right and cannot waive this right, pursuant to Article 59 of the Labor Law, it is stated that in the event of termination of the employment relationship for any reason, the wages of the annual leave periods that the employee is entitled to but cannot use will be paid to the employee or his/her beneficiary at the wage on the date of termination of the contract.
Article 53 of the Labor Law regulates the duration of annual paid leave according to the length of service of the employees; (i) 14 days for those with 1 year to 5 years (including 5 years), (ii) 20 days for those with more than 5 years and less than 15 years, (iii) 26 days for those with 15 years (including) or more. According to Article 56 of the Labor Law, although it is regulated that the annual paid leave cannot be divided by the employer and that it shall be used continuously, the same article stipulates that the employee may use his/her leave in parts, one part of which shall not be less than ten days, upon the agreement of the parties.
Another important issue that should be evaluated within the scope of the right to annual paid leave is the determination of the duration of annual paid leave by combining the periods worked in one or different workplaces of the same employer. Article 54/1 of the Labor Law not only limits this issue to the workplaces of the employer that are within the scope of the Labor Law, but also includes the periods worked in workplaces outside the scope of the Labor Law, thus broadening the scope of annual paid leave. In the event that the employment relationship is intermittent, it is not important that the work to be performed for the same employer is continuous, the intermittent work should be summed up and the right to annual paid leave should be determined. Article 4 of the Regulation on Annual Paid Leave20 stipulates that the intermittent work of the employee at the workplace of the same employer shall be combined in the calculation of the annual leave period and the period required to qualify for leave.
2. Calculation of Liquidated Annual Paid Leave
The annual paid leave rights of the employees whose employment relationship is terminated due to retirement and then reemployed in the same workplace is an issue where different opinions are put forward and there is no unity of jurisprudence in the decisions of the Court of Cassation. In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 31.01.2007, the liquidation of the employee’s annual paid leave for the previous period is subject to the condition of payment of the leave fee21. In the decision, it was ruled that the payment of the severance pay rights of the previous period to the employee liquidates the seniority rights belonging to that period and in the event that the annual leave rights of the previous period are paid at the end of the employment relationship, the seniority based on the previous annual leave is also liquidated22. As it can be understood, in the relevant decision of the Court of Cassation, it has been decided that if the employee’s annual leave rights of the previous period have been paid, Article 54 of the Labor Law does not come into effect and the annual leave rights of the previous period are liquidated and the annual paid leave calculation in the new employment relationship with the same employer should be determined without adding the seniority periods of the previous period23.
The Court of Cassation changed its opinion in its subsequent decisions and decided that the liquidation of the previous period with the payment of severance pay to the employee does not constitute an obstacle to the entitlement to annual paid leave in the following working period and the consolidation of the previous service periods in the calculation of these periods24. As a matter of fact, in a decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was ruled that in the calculation of the period required to be entitled to annual paid leave pursuant to Article 54 of the Labor Law, the periods of service previously spent by the employee in one or different workplaces of the same employer should also be taken into consideration. In the same Court of Cassation decision, it is stated that in the case where the employee’s previous period annual leave rights are liquidated, it is not possible to add the previous period service periods, but in the case where the employee’s previous period annual leave rights are not liquidated, Article 54 of the Labor Law may come into effect and it may be possible to calculate the new period annual leave by adding the previous period seniority periods25.
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 05.11.2020, it was stated that it is not important whether the annual leave rights of the employee for the previous period are used or the corresponding fee is paid, and the seniority periods for the previous period should also be taken into account in the calculation of the annual paid leave for the new period26. At this point, the Court of Cassation has changed its jurisprudence with this decision and has ruled that the calculation of the annual paid leave for the new period should be made by adding the service periods of the previous period, disregarding the liquidation of the annual leave rights for the previous periods.
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 05.11.2020, it was ruled that in the calculation of the annual leave right in intermittent work, a 5 year statute of limitations must exist between the end of the previous working period and the beginning of the new working period in order for the previous service periods to be time barred27. However, in the decision of the same department dated 27.01.2022, it was stated that the right to annual paid leave is a constitutional right to rest and therefore, the previous period of service cannot be timebarred in intermittent work28. In the same decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it was decided that the annual leave can be determined by adding the periods that cannot be entitled to leave because 1 year has not expired in the previous service period to the subsequent period of work.
As can be seen, it cannot be said that the Court of Cassation has reached a unity of jurisprudence in terms of the decisions given on different dates. However, according to the opinion in the doctrine, which we also agree with, it is a correct opinion that the previous seniority periods should be taken into account in the calculation of the annual paid leave rights of the employees whose employment relationship is terminated due to retirement and who are reemployed in the same workplace, regardless of the fact that the previous working period has been liquidated in determining the annual paid leave rights of the new period.
C. Social Security Support Contribution
The insurance premium is the coverage fee paid to the state in an amount and over a period of time determined for employees to be able to benefit from stateprovided health services and to qualify for an oldage pension if they fulfill the necessary conditions. This fee is a premium fee that must also be paid for employees who retire within the scope of 4A according to the Social Security and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510. While the social security support premium to be paid for the period worked for the postretirement period will not change the pension of the retired employees, it is a premium payment that must be paid within the scope of occupational diseases and / or occupational accidents arising from the nature of the work or work of the insured. These premiums are paid by the employer29.
In this context, the social security support premium application is the institution that enables the workers who are entitled to the retirement status of the workers who meet the conditions sought within the scope of EYT to continue to work without interruption of their pensions and to receive their pensions together with their labor wages. In consequence, unless otherwise agreed in the contract and as a result of meeting the conditions required by law, employees who retire with EYT will be able to work in the same or a different workplace of the employer with Social Security Support Premium (SGDP) if the employer deems it appropriate30. The retired employee has to pay Social Security Support Premium in order to cover social protection in case of occupational accidents and diseases31.
With the provisional Article 95 of the Law No. 5510, the application of the insurance premium incentive in favor of the employer regarding the reemployment of the retired personnel in their last workplace within 30 working days and their starting to work subject to SGDP under the private sector employer who meets the conditions required by the law and the amount covering the 5 point portion of the SGDP employer’s share by the Treasury has been ruled in accordance with the SSI Circular dated 14/4/2023 and numbered 2023/19 and subparagraph (ı) of the first paragraph of Article 81 of the Law No. 5510 regarding insurance premiums and state contribution.
Within this framework, 03.03. 2023 for the first time on the grounds of fulfilling the retirement criteria and within 30 days following the termination of the employment relationship due to the termination of the employment relationship, the payment of monthly premiums and service documents within the legal period, withholding and premium service declaration, accrued premiums and overdue insurance premiums in all workplaces located in various regions of Turkey. Employers who do not owe unemployment insurance premiums, administrative fines, and related late payment penalties and late payment increases, as well as those who do not face penalties for failing to report their employees as insured or for not actually employing the insured they have reported, will benefit from the treasuryfunded 5 point social security support premium.
III. CONCLUSION
In the event that employees who are eligible for retirement and terminate their employment contracts and are exited from the Social Security Institution (SSI) are reemployed by their employers by making SSI entries, whether their work continues uninterruptedly or time elapses between the exit and reemployment, a new employment contract may be signed with the employee and it may be possible to determine the postretirement working conditions different from the previous conditions, including wages, position and fringe benefits. In this framework, in the light of the reasons explained above, according to the opinion we concur with, provided that the seniority and annual leave rights are liquidated before retirement, the working period before the termination will not be taken into account in the calculation of the severance pay and annual paid leave periods that the employee will be entitled to in the working period after the termination, liquidation of severance pay and unused annual leaves, all accrued severance pay and annual paid leave rights and other receivables accrued during the working period before retirement by paying all of the accrued severance pay and annual paid leave rights and other receivable items will protect the rights of the employee and will be in favor of the employer32.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALPER SÜZEK, İş Hukuku: Genel Esaslar – Bireysel İş Hukuku, 20. Baskı, İstanbul 2020.
DR. BAKİ OĞUZ MÜLAYİM, “15 Yıl Sigortalılık Süresi ve 3600 Prim Ödeme Gününü Dolduranların İşten Ayrılmalarında Kıdem Tazminatı Talep Edebilmesi”, Erciyes Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. XIII, S. 1, 2018.
ERCÜMENT ÖZKARACA, “Sigortalılık Süresi ve Prim Ödeme Gün Sayısını Tamamlama Suretiyle Kıdem Tazminatı Hakkı ve Bu Sebeple Yapılan Feshin Sözleşmesel Kayıtlara Etkisi” Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, C. 36, S. 1, 2013.
EROL GÜNER, “Yıllık İzin Ücreti Çıplak Ücret Üzerinden Hesaplanmalı”, E-Yaklaşım, C. XXIX, S. 366, 2023.https://www.turkis.org.tr/turk-is-kasim2023-aclik-ve-yoksulluk-siniri/ (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
FATİH RÜŞTÜ TAŞKIN, “Yaş Dışındaki Emeklilik Şartlarını Doldurarak Kıdem Tazminatı Kazanma Hakkı Kaç Kez Kullanılabilir?”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, C. XXXII. 2022. HARUN CAN, İş Hukukunda Kıdem Tazminatı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Yüksek Lisans Programı, 2018,
MUSA ÇAKMAKÇI, “15 Yıl ve 3600 Günden Kıdem Tazminatı Hakkı Bir Kez Mi Kullanılabilecek ”,https://www.muhasebetr.com/yazarlarimiz/musacakmakci/094/#:~:text=Normal %20tahsis%20ama%C3%A7l%C4%B1%20 emeklilik%20ya,dayanarak%20tekrar%20k%C4%B1dem%20tazminat%C4%B1%20isteyemez. (Date of Access: 04.01.2024).
DR. RESUL LİMON, “Türkiye De Kıdem Tazminatının Tarihi Gelişimi ve Kıdem Tazminatı Fonu”, İş ve Hayat, C. 1, S. 1, 2015.
SEVGİ DURSUN ATEŞ, “25 Yıl Sigortalılık Süresi ve 4500 Prim Ödeme Gününü veya 7000 Prim Ödeme Gününü Tamamlayarak İş Sözleşmesini Fesheden İşçilerin Kıdem Tazminatı Hakları”, SÜHFD., C. 29, S. 1, 2021.
TALHA BAKIRCIOĞLU, “EYT’li İşçilerin Yıllık İzin Durumu Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, E-Yaklaşım, C. XXIX, S. 365, 2023.
https://legal.com.tr/blog/is-hukuku/emeklilik-sonrasi-ayni-isyerinde-calismaya-devam-eden-iscinin-kidem-ve-yillik-izni-nasil-hesaplanmalidir/#:~:text=%C3%87%C3%BCnk%C3%BC%20emekli%20olup%20 k%C4%B1dem%20tazminat%C4%B1n% C4%B1,k%C4%B1dem%20 tazminat%C4%B1na%20hak%20kazanmas%C4%B1%20m%C3%BCmk%C3%BCnd%C3%BCr (Date of Access: 03.01.2024).
https://www.harbiyehukuk.com/emeklilik-nedeniyle-kidem-tazminati/ (Date of Access: 03.01.2024); https://www.turkiyefinans.com.tr/tr-tr/blog/sayfalar/sigorta-primi-nedir. aspx (Date of Access: 28.01.2024).
https://www.sgk.gov.tr/Content/Post/ada02fa5-e15f-4e0db6c9-fef40a54eb3c/Emeklilikten-Sonra-Tekrar-Calisma-SGDP-2022-05-13-09-35-43 (Date of Access, 28.01.2024). https://www.pwc.com.tr/eyt-duzenlemesi-calisma-hayatini-nasil-etkileyecek (Date of Access: 28.01.2024).
https://www.verginet.net/dtt/11/sgk-2023-3.aspx (Date of Access, 28.01.2024). “Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi İçtihat Farklılıklarının Görüşülmesi Eylül 2020 (İlke Kararları)”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, C. 94/6, 2020.
FOOTNOTE
1 https://www.turkis.org.tr/turk-is-kasim-2023-aclik-ve-yoksulluk-siniri/ (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
2 Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu, 16.06.2006 tarih, 26200 sayılı Resmî Gazete (RG). (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
3 Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu ile 375 Sayılı Kanun Hükmünde Kararnamede Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun m. 03.03.2023 tarih, 32121 sayılı Resmî Gazete (RG). (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
4 Ercüment Özkaraca, “Sigortalılık Süresi ve Prim Ödeme Gün Sayısını Tamamlama Suretiyle Kıdem Tazminatı Hakkı ve Bu Sebeple Yapılan Feshin Sözleşmesel Kayıtlara Etkisi” Çalışma ve Toplum, C. 36 S.1, Ocak 2013, p.171- 173.
5 Yargıtay HGK, T. 14.11.2019, E. 2016/1419, K. 2019/1183 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
6 Alper Süzek, İş Hukuku: Genel Esaslar – Bireysel İş Hukuku, 20. Baskı, İstanbul 2020, p. 752.
7 4857 Sayılı İş Kanunu m. 14., 10.06.2003 tarih, 25134 sayılı Resmi Gazete (RG), (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
8 Dr. Resul Limon, Türkiye’de Kıdem Tazminatının Tarihi Gelişimi ve Kıdem Tazminatı Fonu, İş ve Hayat, C 1, S. 1, Şubat 2015, p. 156.
9 Dr. Baki Oğuz Mülayim, “15 Yıl Sigortalılık Süresi ve 3600 Prim Ödeme Gününü Dolduranların İşten Ayrılmalarında Kıdem Tazminatı Talep Edebilmesi” ERÜHFD, C. XIII, S. 1, 2018, p. 47-48.
10 6098 Sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu m.26, 04.02.2011 tarih, 27836 sayılı Resmi Gazete (RG). (Erişim Tarihi 01.01.2024).
11 Sevgi Dursun Ateş, “25 Yıl Sigortalılık Süresi ve 4500 Prim Ödeme Gününü veya 7000 Prim Ödeme Gününü Tamamlayarak İş Sözleşmesini Fesheden İşçilerin Kıdem Tazminatı Hakları” Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, C. 29, S. 1, 2021, p. 562-563.
12 Yargıtay 22. H.D., T. 10.12.2013, E. 2013/9215, K. 2013/28777 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
13 Musa Çakmakçı, “15 Yıl ve 3600 Günden Kıdem Tazminatı Hakkı Bir Kez Mi Kullanılabilecek”, https://www. muhasebetr.com/yazarlarimiz/musacakmakci/094/#:~:text=Normal%20 tahsis%20ama%C3%A7l%C4%B1%20 emeklilik%20ya,dayanarak%20 tekrar%20k%C4%B1dem%20tazminat%C4%B1%20isteyemez. (Erişim tarihi, 04.01.2024); Yargıtay 9. H.D., E. 2014/33390 K. 2016/4940; “Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi İçtihat Farklılıklarının Görüşülmesi Eylül 2020 (İlke Kararları)”, İstanbul Barosu Dergisi, C. 94/6 (2020) p. 487-501.”
14 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 07.03.2016, E. 2014/33390, K. 2016/4940.
15 Dursun Ateş, p. 570-575.; “Bu hakkın birden fazla kullanılmasını engelleyen bir ibarenin 1475 sayılı İşK. m.14’te bulunmadığını, ancak bu boşluğun bilerek yaratılmış bir boşluk olmayıp irade dışı meydana geldiği, aksi bir sonucun hakkın kötüye kullanımına yeşil ışık yakacağını, amaca göre yorum yapılması gerektiğini, bu durumun bir tür yıpranmanın erken ödüllendirilmesi olduğunu, bu hakkın defalarca kullanılmasının amaçlanmadığını...” Mülayim, p. 61. ; Fatih Rüştü Taşkın, “Yaş Dışındaki Emeklilik Şartlarını Doldurarak Kıdem Tazminatı Kazanma Hakkı Kaç Kez Kullanılabilir?”, Mali Çözüm Dergisi, Mayıs-Haziran 2022, C. 32, p. 307-315.
16 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 25.11.2020, E. 2016/33022, K. 2020/16854 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024). https:// legal.com.tr/blog/is-hukuku/emeklilik-sonrasi-ayni-isyerinde-calismaya-devam-eden-iscinin-kidem-ve-yillik-izni-nasil-hesaplanmalidir/#:~:text=%C3%87%C3%BCnk%C3%BC%20 emekli%20olup%20k%C4%B1dem%20 tazminat%C4%B1n%C4%B1,k%C4%B1dem%20tazminat%C4%B1na%20 hak%20kazanmas%C4%B1%20 m%C3%BCmk%C3%BCnd%C3%BCr (Date of Access, 03.01.2024).
17 https://www.harbiyehukuk.com/ emeklilik-nedeniyle-kidem-tazminati/ (Erişim Tarihi 03.01.2024); Harun Can, İş Hukukunda Kıdem Tazminatı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul 2018, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Özel Hukuk Yüksek Lisans Programı, p. 43-44.
18 Erol Güner, “Yıllık İzin Ücreti Çıplak Ücret Üzerinden Hesaplanmalı”, E-Yaklaşım, C. XXIX, S. 366, Haziran 2023, p. 196.
19 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 27.1.2022, E. 2021/12471, K. 2022/1343 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Erişim Tarihi: 09.01.2024).
20 Yıllık Ücretli İzin Yönetmeliği m. 4, 03.03.2004 tarih, 25391 Sayılı Resmî Gazete (RG). (Date of Access, 01.01.2024).
21 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 31.01.2007, E. 2006/12556, K. 2007/1252.
22 Talha Bakırcıoğlu, “EYT’li İşçilerin Yıllık İzin Durumu Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, E-Yaklaşım, C. XXIX, S. 365, Mayıs 2023, p. 176.
23 Bakırcıoğlu, p. 176.
24 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 05.11.2020, E. 2016/29801, K. 2020/14939 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
25 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 9.2.2021, E. 2020/2236, K. 2021/3668 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
26 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 05.11.2020, E. 2016/29801, K. 2020/14939 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
27 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 05.11.2020, E. 2016/29801, K. 2020/14939 (karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
28 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 27.1.2022, E. 2021/12471, K. 2022/1343(karararama.yargitay.gov.tr; Date of Access, 09.01.2024).
29 https://www.turkiyefinans.com.tr/ tr-tr/blog/sayfalar/sigorta-primi-nedir. aspx (Date of Access, 28.01.2024).
30 https://www.sgk.gov.tr/Content/ Post/ada02fa5-e15f-4e0d-b6c9-fef40a 54eb3c/Emeklilikten-Sonra-Tekrar-Calisma-SGDP-2022-05-13-09-35-43 (Date of Access, 28.01.2024).
31 https://www.pwc.com.tr/eyt- duz enlemesi-calisma-hayatini-nasil-etkileyecek (Date of Access, 28.01.2024).
32 https://www.verginet.net/dtt/11/ sgk-2023-3.aspx (Date of Access, 28.01. 2024).
