ABSTRACT
Commercial companies may change their structure depending on the demands of the business world. In our study, the issues regarding the employee’s right to object to the transfer of the employment relationship are evaluated within the framework of Article 6 of the Labor Law and Article 178 of the TCC.
I. INTRODUCTION
The changes brought about by economic developments in enterprises make the transfer of some or all of the workplace’s compulsory, and this situation has led to some legal problems. The fact that changing employers while moving to a new place of employment has an impact on the employee, it is necessary to create some legislation to ensure the protection of the employees. Article 6 of the Labor Law stipulates that in the event of the transfer of the workplace or a part of the workplace to another employer based on a legal transaction, the employment contracts of the employees working in the workplace will be transferred to the transferee employer and the provisions and consequences of this transfer are regulated. Article 6 of the Labor Law does not grant the employee the right to object to the transfer of the employment contract to the transferee employer. Article 178 of the TCC, on the other hand, grants the employees affected by the transfer the right to object to the transfer of their employment contracts to the transferee employer in cases where the merger, division and change of type of commercial companies have the characteristics of workplace transfer. In this study, Article 178 of the TCC and Article 6 of the Labor Law are discussed, and the legal nature, exercise and consequences of the right of objection are examined.
II. BASIC CONCEPTS
A. Workplace
Article 2 of the Labor Law defines “workplace” as “the unit in which the employer organizes material and non-material elements and workers together for the purpose of producing goods or services”. In the same article, it is stated that the places connected to the workplace, which are qualitatively related to the goods or services produced by the employer in the workplace and which are organized under the same management, and other annexes and tools such as resting, breastfeeding, eating, sleeping, washing, examination and maintenance, physical and vocational training and courtyards are also considered as workplaces1. “The workplace is a whole within the scope of the work organization formed by the places, annexes and vehicles connected to the workplace”.
As stated in the definition in the Labor Law, a workplace is a unit in which tangible and intangible elements and workers are organized for the purpose of producing a specific good or service2. The prominent element in the definition of workplace is the realization of "the production of a specific good or service”. A workplace is formed by the organization of tangible elements such as buildings, machinery, materials, rights such as patents, receivables, trademarks, intangible elements such as experience, inventions, customer relations and workers3. Every workplace is an organized association. However, in order to establish the concept of workplace, this organization must be continuous4.
B. Enterprise
The concept of enterprise is not included in the Labor Law, and the concept of enterprise is not regulated in the European Union Directive 2001/23/EC, which was taken into consideration while regulating Article 6 of the Labor Law5. A single workplace may be included within the scope of an enterprise, or more than one workplace may be included within an enterprise. Although it is not absolutely necessary, while the workplace has a technical purpose, the enterprise has an economic purpose6. Therefore, an enterprise can be defined as a whole formed by the organization of one or more workplaces affiliated to an employer in order to achieve an economic objective.
C. Transfer of Workplace
The transfer of the workplace regulated under Article 6 of the Labor Law is the transfer of the rights and management of the workplace, in whole or in part, to another employer7. The conditions regarding the transfer of the workplace are regulated in both the Labor Law and the Turkish Code of Obligations numbered 6098 (“TCO”). The Labor Law No. 1475 also has a special provision regarding severance pay in the event of the transfer of the workplace. The provisions regulating the transfer of the workplace in the Labor Law and the TCO are in line with the European Union legislation and are intended to prevent the employment contract between the parties from being affected by the transfer8.
Pursuant to the European Union Directive 2001/23/EC, a transfer of the workplace occurs when there is a change of employer and the activities of the workplace are continued by the new employer with the existing employees and within the same work organization9. Therefore, in order to speak of a transfer of the workplace, there must be a change of employer.
According to the doctrine and judicial decisions, when determining whether there is a workplace transfer; the type of workplace and enterprise, whether the tangible and intangible elements of the enterprise are transferred, whether the workers are transferred, whether there is a similarity between the activity before the transfer and the activity after the transfer, and whether the technical purpose of the workplace has undergone any changes are taken into consideration10. It should also be noted that in order to talk about the transfer of the workplace, this transfer must be based on a legal transaction11. Article 6 of the Labor Law stipulates that “When the workplace or a part of the workplace is transferred to another person based on a legal transaction, the employment contracts existing in the workplace or a part of the workplace at the date of transfer shall be transferred to the transferee together with all rights and obligations”. The last paragraph states that the provisions of Article 6 of the Labor Law “shall not apply to the transfer of the workplace or a part thereof to another person as a result of the liquidation of assets due to bankruptcy”.
III. LEGAL REGULATIONS REGARDING THE TRANSITION OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP IN THE TRANSFER OF THE WORKPLACE
In order to evaluate the right of the employee to object to the transfer of the employment relationship to the transferee employer in the transfer of the workplace, the concepts of merger and demerger should first be examined, and then the provisions of Article 6 of the Labor Law and Article 178 of the TCC regarding the transfer of the employment relationship should be discussed.
A. The Concepts of Merger and Division
Pursuant to Article 136 of the TCC, “mergers may be in the form of “merger by acquisition”, where one company takes over the other company, or “merger by new establishment”, where the two companies come together in a new company.” A merger “takes place through the spontaneous acquisition of the shares of the transferred company by the shareholders of the company in return for the assets of the transferred company”. Pursuant to Article 136/4 of the TCC, “the transferee company takes over the assets of the transferred company as a whole, and the transferred company is terminated and deleted from the trade registry”. The merger becomes valid upon the registration of the merger in the trade registry, and at the time of registration, the transferred company automatically transfers all of its assets and liabilities to the transferee company.
Division is the transfer of all or part of the assets of capital companies and cooperatives to other capital companies and co-operatives without liquidation and through partial succession, and as a result of this transaction, the shareholders of the divided company automatically become shareholders of the transferee companies.
Pursuant to Article 159 of the TCC, “a company may be fully or partially divided. In a full spin-off, all assets of the company are divided into parts and transferred to other companies. The shareholders of the divided company acquire the shares and rights of the transferee companies. The company that is fully divided and transferred is terminated and deleted from the trade registry”.
Partial division refers to when one or more assets of the divided company are divided and transferred to other companies. In a partial spin-off, the spin-off company is not deleted from the trade registry and continues to operate with its remaining assets. In both full and partial spin-offs, the transferred assets are transferred to the transferee shareholders after the spin-off.
Article 178 of the TCC regulates the right of objection of the employee in the transfer of the workplace and enterprise as a result of full and partial division, the effect of this transfer on employment contracts, and the liability of the transferor and transferee employers.
B. Regulation Foreseen In The Labor Law On The Transition of The Employment Relation - ship In The Transfer of The Workplace
Article 6 of the Labor Law regulating the transfer of workplace;
“1- When the workplace or a part of the workplace is transferred to another person based on a legal transaction, the employment contracts existing in the workplace or a part of it on the date of transfer shall pass to the transferee together with all rights and obligations.
2- The transferee employer is obliged to act according to the date the employee started to work for the transferor employer in the rights based on the length of service of the employee.
3- In case of transfer according to the above provisions, the transferor and transferee employers are jointly liable for the debts that arose before the transfer and that must be paid on the date of transfer. However, the responsibility of the transferor employer for these obligations is limited to two years from the date of transfer.
4- Provisions on joint liability shall not apply in the event of termination of a legal entity through merger or merger or change of its type.
5- The transferor or transferee employer cannot terminate the employment contract solely due to the transfer of the workplace or a part of the workplace and the transfer does not constitute a just cause for termination for the employee. The termination rights of the transferor or transferee employer necessitated by economic and technological reasons or change in work organization or the right of immediate termination of employees and employers for just cause are reserved.
6- The above-mentioned provisions shall not apply to the transfer of the workplace or a part of it to another person as a result of the liquidation of the assets due to bankruptcy.”
As can be seen, Article 6 of the Labor Law stipulates that in the event that the workplace or a part of the workplace is transferred to another employer based on a legal transaction, the employment contracts existing in the workplace or a part of the workplace on the date of transfer shall be transferred to the transferee employer together with all rights and obligations, and it is aimed to prevent any loss of rights of the employee with the automatic transfer of the employment contracts12. This article, which aims to protect the employee, does not include any provision regarding the employee’s objection to the transfer.
C. Regulation Foreseen in the TCC on the Transition of the Employment Relationship in the Transfer of the Workplace
Unlike the abrogated Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762, the TCC introduces provisions regulating employment relations specific to the transfers of commercial companies through merger, division and conversions (TCC 158/4, 178, 190). Article 178 titled “Transition of the Employment Relationship”, which is referred to in Article 158/4 of the TCC and Article 190 of the TCC;
“1- In a full or partial spin-off, the service contracts concluded with the employees shall pass to the transferee with all rights and obligations arising from this contract until the day of transfer, unless the employee objects.
2- If the worker objects, the contract of service shall expire at the end of the statutory dismissal period; the transferee and the worker shall be obliged to fulfil the contract until that date.
3- The former employer and the transferee are jointly and severally liable for the employee’s receivables due before the division and for the receivables due during the period until the date when the service contract is normally terminated or terminated due to the objection of the employee.
4- Unless otherwise agreed or unless it is understood from the necessity of the situation, the employer cannot transfer the rights arising from the service contract to a third party.
5- Workers may request the guarantee of their receivables that are due and will become due as provided in the first paragraph.
6- The shareholders of the transferor company who were liable for the debts of the company before the spin-off shall continue to be jointly and severally liable for the debts arising from the service contract and due until the day of transfer, and for the debts that would have become due if the service contract had been terminated normally or that would have arisen until the termination of the service contract due to the objection of the employee.”
In the preamble of Article 178 of the TCC, it is stated that the first four paragraphs of the Article are taken from Article 333 of the Swiss Code of Obligations13. In the first two paragraphs of the Article, the right to object to the transfer is granted to the employees specific to the structural changes of commercial companies and limited to the transfer of the employment relationship.
Article 178/1 of the TCC grants the employee the right to object to the transfer and stipulates that the employment contracts shall be transferred to the transferee employer only “if the employee does not object to the transfer”. Article 178 of the TCC grants the right to object to the transfer of employment contracts to the transferee employer to the employees affected by the transfer in the event that the merger, division and conversions of commercial companies constitute a transfer of workplace. In other words, in the event that the transfer of the workplace occurs through merger, division or change of type, the employment contracts will no longer be automatically transferred to the transferee employer, and the employment contracts will be transferred to the transferee employer if the employee does not object to the transfer14. It should be noted that if the employee objects to the transfer, the merger, division or conversion transactions will be legally valid, and the employee’s objection to the transfer will only prevent the transfer of the employment contract to the transferee employer15.
Article 178/2 of the TCC regulates the effect of the employee’s exercise of his right to object to the transfer on the employment relationship. Pursuant to the relevant provision, if the employee objects to the transfer of the employment relationship to the transferee employer in the event of a merger, spin-off or conversion of type, the employment contract of the employee shall terminate at the end of the statutory dismissal period; however, the transferee employer and the employee shall be obliged to fulfil their contractual obligations until the termination date of the employment contract16.
IV. APPLICATION AREA OF ARTICLE 178 OF THE TCC AGAINST ARTICLE 6 OF THE LABOR LAW
Undoubtedly, the term “transfer of employment relations” also includes the transfer of workplace. This situation has led to a debate as to whether Article 178 of the TCC should be applied in priority to Article 6 of the Labor Code, which regulates the transfer of the workplace in Turkish labor law and does not give the employee the right to object to the transfer of the employment relationship to the transferee employer. At this point, it is necessary to determine whether Article 6 of the Labor Law or Article 178 of the TCC shall be applied in priority.
Considering the references to Art. 178 of the TCO in Art. 158/4 and Art. 190 of the TCC, it can be concluded that Art. 178 of the TCC will be applicable to the mergers, demergers and changes of type of commercial companies regulated under Art. 134-194 of the TCC. The purpose of these provisions in the TCC is to protect the rights of the employees who will be affected by the transfer in the event of a workplace transfer as a result of merger, division or change of type17.
Article 6 of the Labor Law regulates the fate of employment relations in the event of the transfer of a workplace or a part of a workplace based on a legal transaction. Pursuant to Article 4 of the Labor Law, the provisions on joint liability shall not apply if the employer is a legal entity and the legal entity is terminated by merger or incorporation or change of its type. Since Article 4 of the Labor Law stipulates that the provisions on joint liability shall not be applicable only in the event of termination of a legal entity through merger or incorporation or change of its type, it can be concluded that Article 6 of the Labor Law should be applied except for the joint liability of employers18.
With the entry into force of the TCC, there are two separate legal provisions regulating the effect of the merger, division or change of type of commercial companies and the transfer of workplaces on employment relations. There are different opinions in the doctrine on the determination of which provision in the legislation will be applied with priority. The predominant opinion in the doctrine supports that this problem should be solved with the principles regarding the resolution of the conflict of laws, that the TCC is a later dated law compared to the Labor Law, that the provision titled “transition of the employment relationship” regulated in Article 178 of the TCC is regulated only in cases of merger, division and change of type of companies, and for these reasons, it is a more special provision compared to Article 6 of the Labor Law, which covers all workplace transfers, and argues that Article 178 of the TCC should be applied in priority19. In the TGNA Justice Commission report on the TCC, it is also stated that Article 178 of the TCC is a special provision vis-à-vis Article 6 of the Labor Law, and this regulation in the commission report also supports the dominant view in the doctrine.
Against the dominant view in the doctrine, there are those who argue that the special law regulating employment relations is the Labor Law, therefore it would not be correct to accept that Article 178 of the TCC is a special regulation regarding the fate of employment relations, and that Article 6 of the Labor Law should be applied in priority over Article 178 of the TCC, even though it is an older dated regulation20. However, it should be noted that this view has not been supported and has taken its place as a minority in the doctrine.
In conclusion, if structural changes in commercial companies result in the transfer of the workplace, it can be stated that Article 178 of the TCC will be applied primarily, and in matters not regulated by the TCC, Article 6 of the Labor Law will be used to fill the gaps in question. Article 6 of the Labor Law shall apply to all transfers of workplaces based on a legal transaction outside the scope of Articles 134-194 of the TCC.
V. APPLICATION OF THE EMPLOYEE’S RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE TRANSFER OF THE LABOR RELATIONSHIP TO THE TRANSFEREE EMPLOYER IN THE TRANSFER OF THE WORKPLACE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ART. 178 OF THE TCC
In our law, the right of objection is defined as a unilateral, innovative right that creates legal consequences upon reaching the other party. The right of objection is a right granted only to the employee, and the transferee employer has no right of objection21. Article 178 of the TCC grants the right of objection to the employee, but does not regulate the form, addressee and duration of this objection22. Within the framework of this gap in the law, various opinions have been put forward in the doctrine.
In the doctrine, it is argued that the objection may be made in writing or orally, based on the provision in Article 12 of the TCO stating that “The validity of contracts is not subject to any form, unless otherwise stipulated by law”. Although it is argued in the doctrine that the principle of freedom of form and oral objection is also possible, in our opinion, it would be more appropriate to make the objection in writing for ease of proof.
In the doctrine, it is stated that Article 178 of the TCC does not require the existence of any reason for the employee to exercise his right of objection, it is sufficient for the employee to object only to the transfer of the employment relationship, and the employee is not obliged to base this objection on a valid reason23. In addition, it is stated that even if the employee has shown a reason for objecting to the transfer of the employment relationship, the fact that this reason does not reflect the reality or does not justify the employee’s objection will not have a negative consequence for the employee and it cannot be claimed that the employee has abused his right to object24.
There are different opinions in the doctrine regarding to whom the employee should direct his objection regarding the transfer of the workplace, and the majority opinion in the doctrine is that the employee should be granted an optional right, as in German law25. It may be argued that, since there is no contrary provision in Article 178 of the TCC and in accordance with the principle of interpretation in favor of the employee, it will be sufficient for the employee to object to the transferor or transferee company26. Accordingly, the employee will have a right of choice when exercising his objection regarding the transfer and will be able to exercise his right of objection against the transferor or the transferee employer.
Article 178 of the TCC does not stipulate the period of time within which the employee must submit his objection regarding the transfer and when this period will commence. Although it is argued in the doctrine that in cases where there is no need to grant a longer period of time to the employee, the period of 6 business days stipulated in Article 22 of the Labor Law regarding the fundamental change in the working conditions is sufficient27, this period is deemed insufficient for the employee to evaluate whether he will exercise his right of objection or not, and this opinion remains in the minority28. Another view in the doctrine argues that the application of the one-month period clearly stipulated in Swiss judicial decisions and the German Civil Code will be sufficient29.
In our opinion, since the duration of the right of objection granted to the employee is not regulated in the legislation, the duration of the objection may vary according to the characteristics of the concrete case. There is currently no Court of Cassation decision on the subject. Therefore, it can be argued at this stage that the employee should exercise the right of objection within a period of time in accordance with the rule of good faith30.
It is argued that the period for the employee’s objection shall commence from the date of notification, if the employee is informed about the transfer, or from the date the employee learns about the transfer, if the employee is not informed31. Therefore, it would be appropriate to accept that the right to object starts from the date the employee is informed about the transfer, or if the employee is not informed, from the date the employee learns about the transfer.
If the employee does not exercise his right of objection within the time limit, it may be concluded that the employee has waived his right of objection, or that the employee has implicitly consented to the transfer of the workplace and tacitly accepted the transfer32. As a result, it can be concluded that the employee must exercise his right of objection against the transferor or transferee employer within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the rule of good faith from the date he learnt about the transfer33.
VI. THE NATURE OF THE TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT DUE TO OBJECTION
The employee’s exercise of the right of objection is not among the circumstances that terminate the employment contract, and Article 178/2 of the TCC introduces a new form of termination that is not regulated in the labor law legislation. There is no clear regulation on the legal nature of the termination of the employment contract upon the objection of the employee. Different opinions have been put forward in the doctrine on this issue. The dominant opinion is that the termination of the employment contract upon the exercise of the right of objection by the employee cannot be considered as a termination of the employee or the employer. In the doctrine, it is argued that the termination of the employment contract upon objection is a unique termination34. In Swiss law, it is also stated that the employee’s objection to the transfer does not constitute a notice of termination35.
Article 178/2 of the TCC stipulates that “if the employee objects, the service contract shall terminate at the end of the statutory dismissal period; the transferee and the employee shall be obliged to fulfil the contract until that date”. The “statutory dismissal period” in the said provision should be understood as the end of the legal notice period. The relevant provision stipulates that the employment contract shall terminate at the end of the legal notice period, and it is accepted in the doctrine that the employment contract shall terminate at the end of the legal notice period even if the notice periods are determined differently from the periods stipulated in Article 17 of the Labor Law. Since the termination of the employment contract upon objection does not constitute an employer termination, it is argued in the doctrine that the employer cannot terminate the employment contract by paying the fee for the notice period in advance in accordance with Article 17/5 of the Labor Law.
Another consequence of the termination of the employment contract upon objection is that the employee will not be able to file a reinstatement lawsuit and claim bad faith compensation.
VII. THE EFFECT OF TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT DUE TO OBJECTION ON LABOR RECEIVABLES
In the event that the employment contract is terminated upon objection, the employee may claim from the employer the wage he/ she is entitled to on the date of termination of the contract and, if any, the unused annual leave fee. At this point, the important issue in terms of labor receivables is whether severance pay will be paid to the employee with one year or more seniority in the event of termination of the employment contract upon objection.
In the doctrine, it is evaluated that if the employment contract is terminated upon the exercise of the right of objection by the employee, the inability of the employee to benefit from the termination rights will not be in accordance with the regulation introduced by the legislator in order to protect the employee in case of transfer of the workplace, and in order for the exercise of the right of objection by the employee to have a meaning, the employee should not be deprived of the labor receivables in case the employee exercises his right of objection. Some authors in the doctrine accept that the right to severance pay will arise in the event of termination of the contract upon the employee’s objection to the transfer.
However, in order for the employee to be entitled to severance pay, the employee must complete one year of seniority and the employment contract must be terminated due to one of the reasons that entitle the employee to severance pay listed in Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 1475. Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 1475 does not include the termination of the employment contract upon the objection of the employee. Therefore, if the employment contract is terminated upon objection, the employee will not be entitled to severance pay.
In the event that the contract is terminated upon the exercise of the right of objection, the payment of severance pay to the employee will clearly contravene Article 14 of the Labor Law No. 1475. The Court of Cassation also stated that “In the concrete dispute, although the plaintiff employee did not consent to the transfer of the workplace based on the relevant provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code and notified that he terminated his employment contract, Article 6 of the Labor Law stipulates that the transfer of the workplace will not constitute a justified termination for the employee, since the employee who objected to the transfer of the workplace cannot be mentioned as a justified termination, it was erroneous to decide to accept the severance indemnity claim with written justification, while the severance indemnity claim should be rejected, and it required a reversal”36. With the evaluation in the form of it has been ruled that the employee will not be entitled to severance indemnity in case of termination of the employment contract in the case of objection.
VIII. CONCLUSION
Article 178 of the TCC, which is an exception to the laws on workplace transfer in Turkish labor law legislation and envisages substantial changes in this field, has resulted in numerous conflicts of opinion in the doctrine and uncertainty in practice. Article 178 of the TCC does not regulate the principles regarding the exercise of the right of objection by the employee, and the consequences regarding the labor and social security law are not taken into consideration in the relevant regulation.
Article 178 of the TCC introduces a special provision regulating the transfer of employment relations to the transferee employer in the case of division, merger and conversion of commercial companies. Since Article 178 of the TCC does not apply to all transfers of workplaces, but only to transfers of commercial companies through division, merger and conversion of type, it is considered to be a special regulation compared to Article 6 of the Labor Law. In the event of any conflict between the two regulations, Article 178 of the TCC shall apply to transfers of companies, and Article 6 of the Labor Law shall apply to transfers based on legal transactions. Regarding the matters not included in Article 178 of the TCC, Article 6 of the Labor Law shall apply.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NURİ ÇELİK/ NURŞEN CANİKLİOĞLU/ TALAT CANBOLAT, İş Hukuku Dersleri, 35th Edition, İstanbul 2022.
SARPER SÜZEK, İş Hukuku, 20th Edition, İstanbul 2020.
ERTAN İREN, Avrupa Birliği Yönergeleri Karşısında 4857 sayılı İş Kanunu’nun Durumu, Ankara 2008.
ÖMER EKMEKÇİ, Bireysel İş Hukuku Dersleri, 3th Edition, İstanbul 2021.
RECEP ÇAKRAK, Ticari Şirketlerin Yapı Değişikliği Sonucunda İş İlişkisinin Geçmesi: İşçinin İtiraz Hakkı, Karatahta İş Yazıları Dergisi, I. 7, Nisan 2017.
MUHİTTİN ASTARLI, “Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda İşyeri Devrinde İşçinin İş İlişkisinin Devralan İşverene Geçişine İtiraz Hakkı”, Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, V. 1, I. 6, 2013.
SARPER SÜZEK, İşyerinin Devri ve Hukuki Sonuçları, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, V. 15, Special Edition, 2013 (İşyeri).
ŞEYMA AKKAŞOĞLU, “Şirketlerde Birleşme, Bölünme veya Tür Değiştirmenin İş Sözleşmelerine Etkisi”, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara 2017.
MUHİTTİN ASTARLI, Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Işığında İşyeri Devrinde İşverenin İşçiyi Bilgilendirme Yükümlülüğü, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, I. 104, 2013 (Karşılaştırmalı).
ALBAYRAK ZİNCİRLİOĞLU, İşyerinin Devrinde Türk Ticaret Kanunu ile İş Kanunu Hükümlerinin İş İlişkilerine Etkisi, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, I. 114, 2014.
FOOTNOTE
1 Nuri Çelik/ Nurşen Caniklioğlu/ Talat Canbolat, İş Hukuku Dersleri, 35th Edition, İstanbul 2022, p. 135; Sarper Süzek, İş Hukuku, 20th Edition, İstanbul 2020 p. 187.
2 Süzek, p. 187.
3 Süzek, p. 188.
4 Çelik/ Caniklioğlu/ Canbolat, p. 137.
5 Ertan İren, Avrupa Birliği Yönergeleri Karşısında 4857 sayılı İş Kanunu’nun Durumu, Ankara 2008, p. 175 et seq.
6 Süzek, p. 191.
7 Ömer Ekmekçi, Bireysel İş Hukuku Dersleri, 3th Edition, İstanbul 2021, p. 220.
8 Ekmekçi, p. 219.
9 Ekmekçi, p. 221.
10 Yargıtay HGK., T. 15.02.2017, E. 2015/1275, K. 2017/266
11 Çelik/ Caniklioğlu/ Canbolat, p. 140; Ekmekçi, p. 222.
12 For the justification of Article 6 of the Labor Law, see https://www.lexpera.com.tr.Access Date 26 April 2023.
13 For the justification of the Article 178 of TCC, see https://www.lexpera.com.tr Access Date: 26 April 2023.
14 Süzek, p. 327.
15 Recep Çakrak, “Ticari Şirketlerin Yapı Değişikliği Sonucunda İş İlişkisinin Geçmesi: ‘İşçinin İtiraz Hakkı’”, Karatahta İş Yazıları Dergisi, I. 7, April 2017, p. 150.
16 Muhittin Astarlı, “Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta ve Türk Hukukunda İşyeri Devrinde İşçinin İş İlişkisinin Devralan İşverene Geçişine İtiraz Hakkı”, Çalışma ve Toplum Dergisi, V. 1, I. 6, 2013, p. 84.
17 Astarlı, p. 84.
18 Astarlı, p. 84.
19 Sarper Süzek, “İşyerinin Devri ve Hukuki Sonuçları”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, V. 15, Special Edition, 2013, p. 326- 327; Çelik/ Caniklioğlu/ Canbolat, p. 143-144.
20 Ekmekçi, p. 202.
21 Şeyma Akkaşoğlu, “Şirketlerde Birleşme, Bölünme veya Tür Değiştirmenin İş Sözleşmelerine Etkisi”, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara 2017, p. 121-122.
22 Muhittin Astarlı, “Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk Işığında İşyeri Devrinde İşverenin İşçiyi Bilgilendirme Yükümlülüğü”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, I. 104, 2013, p. 174-175.
23 Çakrak, p. 150.
24 Akkaşoğlu, p. 123.
25 Akkaşoğlu, p. 123-124.
26 Albayrak/ Zincirlioğlu, “İşyerinin Devrinde Türk Ticaret Kanunu ile İş Kanunu Hükümlerinin İş İlişkilerine Etkisi”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, I. 114, 2014, p. 34.
27 Çakrak, p. 151; Zincirlioğlu, p. 32-33.
28 Çakrak, p. 152; Zincirlioğlu, p. 33.
29 Zincirlioğlu, p. 33.
30 Süzek, İşyeri, p. 327-328.
31 Akkaşoğlu, p. 126.
32 Zincirlioğlu, p. 33.
33 Süzek, İşyeri, p. 327-328; Çelik/ Caniklioğlu/ Canbolat, p. 143.
34 Astarlı, Karşılaştırmalı, p. 174; Zincirlioğlu, p. 35; Süzek, İşyeri, p. 329.
35 Çakrak, p. 150.
36 Yargıtay 9. H.D., T. 10.12.2018, E. 2015/28060, K.2018/22719.
