ABSTRACT
In this article; alternative resolution methods such as negotiation, settlement, conciliation, mediation and arbitration will be examined.
I. INTRODUCTION
Labor law is of great importance for the regulation of working life and the protection of workers’ rights. Labor law includes rules regulating the working conditions, wages, social rights and job security of workers. It also determines the obligations and responsibilities of employers. Considering all these, when a dispute arises regarding labor law, it is important to resolve labor disputes in accordance with the principle of worker protection. Accordingly, the resolution of labor disputes has become an important subject of contemporary legal systems. As a result of the recruitments made in parallel with the increase in the need for workers in the business sector, which is developing and changing day by day, especially in big cities in our country, employee-employer disputes also arise, and the determination of evidence regarding the dispute in the judicial process, discovery or expert consultation, when necessary, are among the factors that prolong the judicial process. The long duration of the proceedings may also lead to the violation of the right to a fair trial. As a matter of fact, Article 36 of the Constitution stipulates that “Everyone has the right to a fair trial before the judicial authorities, as a plaintiff or defendant, through the use of legitimate means and remedies. No court shall refrain from hearing a case within its jurisdiction.” and in the last paragraph of Article 141; ‘It is the duty of the judiciary to conclude the proceedings with the least possible expense and with the greatest possible speed.’ The necessity for the trial processes to take place within reasonable periods of time has also been emphasized by the legislator. However, when we look at the practice, the workload of the courts is quite high and although new courts have been established, this load has not been reduced and judicial processes still take quite a long time. Alternative dispute resolution methods are used to resolve individual labor disputes in order to reduce the workload in the judiciary and to ensure that disputes are resolved within a reasonable time. These methods include negotiation, settlement, conciliation, mediation and arbitration. In particular, mediation has been applied in individual labor disputes on a voluntary basis since 2013 and as a condition of litigation since 2018. Even though mediation is a successful solution method, it is not yet possible to say that the workload of the labor courts has decreased sufficiently and the trial periods have reached reasonable periods. Therefore, in addition to mediation, the necessity of implementing other alternative dispute resolution methods also comes to the agenda. In this context, settlement, negotiation, conciliation, conditional and voluntary mediation and arbitration will be evaluated as alternative methods for the resolution of individual labor disputes.
II. THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL LABOR DISPUTES
Individual labor disputes refer to all kinds of disputes arising from the interpretation, application and termination of the employment contract between the employee and the employer, in other words, any dispute arising from the employment relationship between the employee and the employer. According to another definition, individual labor disputes are defined as “disputes that do not concern a group of workers, but involve the employer and one or a few workers”1. Such even after the employment contract is terminated. At the same time, problems in the workplace such as mobbing, discrimination or lack of occupational safety may also give rise to individual labor disputes. In order to resolve such disputes, an agreement is tried to be reached between the employee and the employer through alternative resolution methods, but in cases where an agreement cannot be reached, the dispute is tried to be resolved by the labor courts in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Law No. 4857, the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 and other relevant legislation. Labor courts use various tools to resolve disputes between employees and employers. These tools include collecting evidence, hearing witnesses, obtaining expert reports and conducting discovery.
III. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION METHODS
A. In General
When confronted with a legal dispute, the judicial authorities are the first place that individuals believe that their rights will be protected and respected the most and the first way they think of applying. However, today, it is not possible for the judicial authorities alone to reach all private law disputes or other dispute areas. This is because the number and types of legal disputes are increasing day by day due to the advancement of technology and the development, change and growth of business opportunities. Considering this situation, the excessive workload of the courts and long trial periods may constitute a violation of the principle of trial within a reasonable time, which is an element of the right to a fair trial. In line with these developments in contemporary law, alternative settlement methods come to the agenda in order to prevent individuals from losing their rights and to reduce the workload of the courts to some extent. With these methods, especially private law disputes are tried to be resolved more simply, quickly, economically and effectively, and it is essential to try to prevent the loss of rights of individuals. In this direction, it is aimed to reach a conclusion more quickly with less cost by leaving behind issues such as the payment of the fees required in the litigation processes, the additional costs required during the litigation process, and the uncertainty of the date the case will be concluded.
B. Conciliation
The settlement of individual labor disputes through conciliation involves the parties of the employee, employer and conciliator. In this alternative solution method, in addition to the parties to the dispute, a third independent person comes to the agenda. Conciliation means the peaceful resolution of the dispute in terms of its nature. In addition to being an alternative solution method in which the parties try to resolve the dispute amicably between themselves through a neutral third party who is accepted as a conciliator, there are also situations where it is not possible for the parties to come together depending on the size and seriousness of the dispute between the parties. What is important at this point is that the third party, who is completely independent from the parties, impartial, objective, and has received specialized training, is a system that aims to provide the parties to the dispute with solution proposals according to the circumstances of the concrete case and to agree on one of the solution proposals. At the same time, it is of course necessary that the parties to the dispute accept this process in good faith and desire to reach a conclusion.
At this point, the difference between settlement and conciliation is that while the parties themselves dominate the process and reach a conclusion by managing the process themselves while ending the dispute with the settlement, in the conciliation method, there is a third party intervention to the parties and the parties reach an agreement with the relevant intervention of the third party in question.
C. Negotiation
Negotiated settlement is one of the most typical, oldest and most common alternative dispute resolution methods. In the negotiation method, the parties meet and exchange ideas without the assistance or support of a third party or, if they deem it necessary, with their lawyers. In negotiation, the parties try to obtain their interests from each other or to get the other party to act in accordance with their wishes. In this method, it is a natural process for the parties to try to protect their own interests. Negotiation is at the heart of all known alternative dispute resolution methods and is often the first method used. Its greatest advantage is that the parties can negotiate all kinds of demands by directly addressing each other. In Turkish law, Article 35/A of the Attorneyship Law No. 1136;
“Lawyers may invite the other party to reconciliation together with their clients in cases and proceedings referred to them before a lawsuit is filed or before the commencement of the trial, provided that they limit themselves to the matters that the parties can voluntarily obtain as a result of their own will. If the other party complies with this invitation and a compromise is reached, the minutes containing the subject of the compromise, the place, date and the matters to be fulfilled mutually shall be signed by the lawyers and their clients together. These minutes have the quality of a judgment within the meaning of Article 38 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Law dated 9/6/1932 and numbered 2004. ”
The most prominent example of the negotiation method has also been written by the legislator.
Although a good result can be achieved if both parties act in good faith and respect each other’s demands, it should also be discussed how much this solution method pays off in employee-employer disputes.
D. Settlement
The settlement of a dispute through conciliation means that the parties to the dispute, the employer and the employee, mutually end the dispute by mutual agreement of their own free will. While ending a dispute through settlement, no other third party will be brought to the agenda, only the individ uals who are parties to the dispute will end the dispute by agreeing among themselves. In the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, the institution of “settlement” is also addressed by the legislator. According to Article 313 of the relevant law titled “settlement”;
“(1) Settlement is an agreement made by the parties in the presence of the court in order to partially or completely terminate the dispute between them in a pending case.
(2) Settlement may only be concluded in cases involving disputes over which the parties can freely dispose.
(3) Matters other than the subject matter of the lawsuit may also be included in the scope of the settlement.
(4) Settlement may also be conditional.”
Considering the aforementioned article, in order for a settlement to take place; (i) there must be a lawsuit already pending, (ii) a settlement agreement made by the parties with their free will before the court, (iii) a subject of dispute that the parties can freely dispose of. As a matter of fact, the subject of settlement is also included in the provisions that follow the relevant legal provision, and it is also stated by the legislator that if the parties end a dispute by settlement, this settlement agreement ends the lawsuit and will have consequences just like the final judg ment of a court. As can be seen, even after the commencement of a litigation process, the parties have the power to terminate the dispute in question with their own will and this will be taken into consideration by the judge and will constitute a reason to terminate the case.
Although the termination of labor disputes by concluding a settlement agreement in the field of labor law is not common in practice, the importance of this alternative solution method should not be ignored.
In Turkish Law and some foreign laws, the judge is obliged to encourage the parties to settle. However, it is debated how effectively this obligation of encouragement is used and how much efficiency can be achieved in practice. To give an example from the laws of other countries, when a lawsuit is filed in Germany regarding a labor dispute, the judge first pursues an approach to reach an agreement between the parties, and if no result is obtained, the lawsuit continues. According to an opinion in the doctrine, it is argued that there should be an obligation for the judge to effectively encourage settlement in Turkish Law, just like in German Law. In this way, it is thought that both the cases will be concluded faster and less cost will be required. Another view is that it is correct that there is no obligation for the judge to encourage settlement, and that the judge’s involvement in the content of the dispute will negatively affect the impartiality of the judge.
E. Mediation
In contemporary law, mediation has started to be adopted as a dispute resolution method in many areas of law, and in some areas of law, this resolution method has the characteristics of a litigation requirement. As a matter of fact, in the field of labor law, mediation was offered to the parties as an optional option until a certain date, and then it was made a condition of litigation in cases related to labor disputes. According to some opinions in the doctrine, it is not considered as a very appropriate solution method due to the fact that the employer is in a stronger position due to the nature of the employ - ee-employer disputes, but according to another opinion in the doctrine, it is consid ered correct that this solution method has become mandatory due to the length of the litigation processes and the increase in the loss of rights in this process that the employ ee spends in search of rights.
Article 2 (b) of the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes defines the concept of mediation;
“It refers to a dispute resolution method that is carried out voluntarily and with the participation of a neutral and independent third party who has received specialized training, who brings the parties together for the purpose of meeting and negotiating by applying systematic techniques, who realizes the establishment of a communication process between them in order to ensure that they understand each other and thus produce their own solutions, who can also propose a solution if it turns out that the parties cannot produce a solution.”
is defined as “mediation”. At the same time, the basic principles of mediation are listed in the relevant law and these principles are; mediation is voluntary, the parties have equal rights, the mediation activity is confidential, the information and documents used in mediation meetings cannot be used elsewhere, and the mediator receives the authority from the parties personally.
Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes was adopted on 07.06.2012 and the relevant law entered into force upon its publication in the Official Gazette on 22.06.2012. Firstly, with the adoption and publication of the relevant law, the concept of “voluntary mediation” took its place in our law. Withthe inclusion of voluntary mediation in our legislation, the parties started to be able to produce alternative solutions through mediation before filing a lawsuit based on their mutual will in line with their own discretion.
On 25.10.2017, mediation as a condition of litigation in labor disputes was addressed in the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 and published in the Official Gazette and put into practice as of 01.01.2018. With the amendment of the relevant law and other legislative amendments, mediation has been made a condition of litigation in labor law, commercial cases and consumer cases, and it has become an obligation for the parties to go through the mediation process before going to court. This is stated in Article 3 of the Labor Courts Law No. 7036 titled “Mediation as a condition of litigation.
“(1) In lawsuits filed for employee or employer receivables and compensation based on the law, individual or collective labor agreement and for reinstatement, it is a condition of the lawsuit that the mediator has been consulted. (Additional sentence: 28/3/2023-7445/41 Art.) The provision of the first sentence shall apply to the cancellation of the objection, negative assessment and recovery lawsuits related to these receivables and compensation. ”
In this way, mediation as a condition of litigation has taken its place in the labor law legislation. Accordingly, cancellation of objection, negative determination and recourse cases related to compensation and receivables between the employee and the employer are also included in the scope of mediation as a condition of litigation. However, the provisions of mediation as a condition of litigation shall not apply to claims for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages arising from occupational accidents or occupational diseases and the related determination, objection and recourse cases. The voluntary mediation process regarding the aforementioned issues will remain in place and mandatory mediation will not be applied.
Paragraph 21 of Article 3 of the Labor Courts Law stipulates that “in cases where there is no provision in this article, the provisions of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes shall be applied to the extent appropriate to its nature.” It is also emphasized that the provisions of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes shall be taken into consideration to the extent necessary.
The purpose of this regulation is to help resolve labor disputes in a short time and with less expense. Thus, it is considered that the principle of trial within a reasonable time, which is an element of the right to a fair trial, can be respected. In addition, this method is expected to end the dispute by preventing the emergence of any other dispute, whether material or formal, and thus contribute to social peace. However, it should be noted that it is also controversial to what extent the employee can defend his/her rights through mediation against the employer, who is in a particularly strong position in employee-employer disputes. As a matter of fact, while the mediation solution method is expected to reduce the workload in the courts, it is observed that many lawsuits have been filed regarding the mediation process. Examples of these lawsuits include lawsuits regarding the impartiality of the mediator, lawsuits for the annulment of the mediation minutes and lawsuits regarding whether the mediation process was conducted in accordance with the procedure.
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated E. 2023/10079, K.2023/15580, 23.10.2023:
“...It should be noted that for the validity of the mediation agreement document, which is a substantive law contract, the parties to the dispute must meet their mutual and mutually appropriate declarations of will regarding the resolution of the dispute and their mutual desire to put this agreement in writing. Of course, the mutual declarations of will do not necessarily cover the entire dispute. In a case where severance pay and notice pay are the subject of dispute, a document of agreement may be prepared in which only severance pay is the subject of the dispute. Since the agreement document, which is in the nature of a judgment obtained at the end of the mediation activity, is not a final judgment in the material sense, it is possible for the parties to assert the invalidity of the agreement document in cases such as absolute nullity, excessive benefit, mistake, deception, intimidation, forgery claim. It should not be overlooked that in the event that the annulment of the mediation agreement document is requested with the claim of fraud, the will to annul must be asserted within one year from the date when the mistake and deception are learned and the intimidation is eliminated...”2.
The mediation process, the conditions of validity and the date range within which the parties may submit their requests are emphasized.
If the mediation process is carried out transparently, procedurally and within the framework of the goodwill of the parties, it will have many positive results. As a matter of fact, with this dispute resolution method being made mandatory by the legislator, if the parties make good use of this process, they will be able to reach their demands before going to court. Otherwise, the mediation process, which has been introduced as a condition of litigation, will only be a waste of time for the parties, and as a matter of fact, entering into a lawsuit process from scratch after the end of this process will force the parties both financially and morally.
If we examine the mediation process, in the first place, if the subject of the dispute between the parties is related to labor receivables, they must apply for mediation within the period of time stipulated in the legislation. However, if the dispute in question is of a nature that will constitute the subject of a reemployment case, then it is necessary to apply to the mediator within one month from the termination of the employment contract, and if the mediation process is concluded negatively, a lawsuit must be filed within two weeks from the date of signing the final minutes, otherwise the right to file a lawsuit will be lost. The mediator is obliged to finalize the mediation process within a period of three weeks from the date of assignment. In mandatory cases, this period may be extended by one week for one time only. It is important to note that while the statute of limitations and forfeiture periods do not continue to run during the mediation process, these periods continue to run in voluntary mediation. At this point, if the parties envisage a litigation process after the mediation process is finalized, the time limits must be observed. When the parties to the dispute reach an agreement at the end of the mediation process by ending the dispute in question, they cannot initiate a judicial process regarding these agreed issues. However, the parties retain the right to file a lawsuit regarding the issues that they did not reach an agreement during the mediation process.
In individual labor disputes, when the parties to the dispute reach an agreement as a result of mediation, an enforceability annotation must be obtained in order for the mediation agreement document to have the effect of enforceability. The certificate of enforceability can be obtained upon request from the Civil Court of Peace where the mediator works. If the certificate of enforceability is obtained, the agreement document will now have the quality of a judgment and will have the same finality and importance as a court decision.
F. Arbitration
Arbitration is an important alternative dispute resolution method in contemporary law and is among the dispute resolution methods in many branches of law. However, arbitration has different and unique features than the alternative dispute resolution methods we have examined and is also important. Dispute resolution through arbitration is not possible for every dispute subject, and Article 408 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 titled “Arbitrability”;
“(1) Disputes arising out of rights in rem over immovable property or out of transactions not subject to the will of both parties are not arbitrable.”
By introducing a regulation, the legislator has limited the disputes that may be subject to arbitration. If the subject matter of the dispute between the parties is compatible with the scope of this article and the mutual will of the parties is to resolve the dispute through arbitration, then dispute resolution through arbitration may come to the agenda.
Unlike other alternative dispute resolution methods, instead of reaching a solution through a third party or mutual dialogue of the parties, the arbitral tribunal or arbitral tribunal has the authority to arbitrate a dispute, just as the courts have the authority when a dispute is brought to court. Just like courts, arbitrators have the authority to make final and conclusive decisions.
Although there are many advantages of arbitration, the most important advantages of the arbitration method can be listed as the fast and dynamic progress of the process, its low cost, the fact that the arbitrators who will conuct the arbitration proceedings are experts, there is no connection between the arbitrators and the parties and accordingly, there is no phenomenon that may cast doubt on impartiality, and the parties can determine the law applicable to the dispute between them and the place of arbitration. These advantages make arbitration an attractive alternative dispute resolution method for the parties. As a matter of fact, compared to the situations such as the determination of the applicable law by the judge, the unknown duration of the process and the unpredictability of the cost of the process, arbitration is more in line with the control of the parties.
When it is considered whether a conclusion can be reached through arbitration in individual labor disputes, Article 20 of the Labor Law No. 4857 titled “Objection to the termination notice and its procedure” states: “The employee whose employment contract has been terminated must apply to the mediator in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Courts Law within one month from the date of notification of the termination notice with the claim that the reason is not shown in the termination notice or the reason shown is not a valid reason. If no agreement is reached at the end of the mediation activity, a lawsuit can be filed at the labor court within two weeks from the date of the final report. If the parties agree, the dispute can also be taken to a special arbitrator instead of the labor court within the same period.” Considering the regulation, it is stated that the parties have the chance to end the dispute through arbitration rather than litigation in disputes regarding reinstatement in line with their mutual will. In other words, the employee whose employment contract has been terminated must apply to the mediator for reinstatement within one month from the date of notification of the termination notice, claiming that no reason was given in the termination notice or that the reason given was not a valid reason. If no agreement is reached at the end of the mediation talks, a lawsuit can be filed at the labor court within two weeks from the date of the final minutes, or if the parties agree, arbitration can be initiated within the same period.
Although the relevant regulation is included in the Labor Law and it is emphasized that there is no harm in arbitration instead of filing a lawsuit if an agreement cannot be reached after the application to the mediator with the reinstatement request, considering the consistent practices of the Court of Cassation, the Court of Cassation is of the opinion that disputes other than reinstatement is not arbitrable and limits the disputes subject to arbi tration to reinstatement requests. As a matter of fact, the Court of Cassation considers that the regulations regarding the jurisdiction of the Labor Courts are of public order and that arbitration agreements made by the parties regarding disputes other than reemployment cases are not valid.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassa tion accepts that the parties may apply to the arbitrator, especially regarding the invalidity of the termination of the employment contract, reinstatement and related job security and wage claims for idle time. However, it is of the opinion that arbitrators are not authorized to decide on, for example, annual paid leave claims or wage claims arising from the employment contract. It is also important to note that since there is no balance of power between the parties in employee-employer disputes, the Court of Cassation emphasizes in its decisions that the parties should state that they want this alternative solution method with their free will without any doubt, especially in the arbitration agreement.
According to the decisions of the Court of Cassation, the arbitration agreement or clause must contain the parties’ intention to resolve the dispute through arbitration in a manner that does not cause any doubt. In the case subject to a decision of the Court of Cassation; “... in the document titled “Release and Waiver” dated 15.09.2011, the date of the notification of termination, the plaintiff and the defendant employer stated that “the plaintiff left the workplace due to the unilateral termination of the employment contract by the employer with compensation in accordance with Article 17 of the Labor Law No. 4857, that he received severance pay, annual leave pay and wage receivables, that he has no other rights and receivables, that if he wants to file a lawsuit in accordance with Article 20 of the Labor Law No. 4857, he will file a lawsuit with the Special Arbitrator consisting of three people, and that this issue is in the form of an arbitration agreement made by the parties with their consent. Article 20 of the Labor Law No. 4857, he will file a lawsuit before the Special Arbitrator consisting of three people, this matter has the effect of an arbitration agreement made with the consent of the parties, he unconditionally released the company unconditionally in all matters and in general terms irrevocably”. ... On the other hand, it is understood that the document titled release and waiver includes the payment of the employee’s labor rights in addition to the termination, in a sense, the payment of these rights is tied to the signing of this agreement containing the arbitration clause, the plaintiff was forced to sign it, and the defendant company used its economic and social superiority over the plaintiff employee to make the defendant company accept issues that would disrupt the equality in its favour in the arbitration agreement. It cannot be said that the arbitration agreement or clause clearly and unequivocally conveys the will of the plaintiff employee to resolve the dispute through arbitration. The arbitration clause in the document titled release and waiver is invalid. The dispute must be resolved in the labor court”3.
According to an opinion in the doctrine, in line with the principle of protection of the employee arising from the nature of labor law, labor courts are specially established courts and it is not right to have a different alternative solution method equal to the jurisdiction of these courts. The labor courts, which are specially established by specialized judges in their field, should conduct proceedings and resolve the dispute. According to another opinion, it is natural to envisage alternative resolution methods in order to reduce the workload of the judicial powers, and arbitration should be applied to all labor disputes. Apart from these, there are different opinions in the doctrine and the issue of the suitability of arbitration in labor law is highly debated4.
In fact, it may be considered that arbitration may also be feasible in an area where mediation is foreseen as a condition of litigation. As a matter of fact, it will be important for labor disputes that arbitration is also possible, at least in cases where mediation is stipulated as a condition for litigation. As a matter of fact, the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, which draws the boundaries of arbitrability, does not prohibit arbitration in cases falling within the scope of labor law.
There are different opinions in the doctrine regarding the validity of arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses agreed upon during the conclusion or continuation of the employment contract. The dominant view rejects the validity of such arbitration agreements or arbitration clauses. According to this view, an arbitration clause agreed upon during the conclusion or continuation of the employment contract cannot be said to have been accepted with the free will of the employee. This is because the employee is in a relationship of dependency due to the employment contract. Therefore, the parties may only agree to arbitrate the dispute regarding the validity of the termination after the termination of the contract. However nother opinion states that Article 20 of the Labor Law states that the parties may conclude an arbitration agreement with their consent and that there is no limitation on the timing of the agreement. Therefore, it is not correct to interfere with the parties’ freedom of contract in this way. To do otherwise would prevent the dispute in question from being resolved by arbitration, which would mean that the arbitral award would not be a fair decision5.
Another opinion states that arbitration agreements can be concluded before or after the conclusion of individual employment contracts, as long as the arbitration agreements are in favour of the employee and only regulate a non-compulsory arbitration right, in other words, as long as the employee is allowed to seek his/her rights through other means other than the exercise of the arbitration right. Arbitration agreements made within this framework should be considered valid6.
In summary, although there are different opinions in the doctrine, discussions regarding arbitration agreements continue. However, the predominant view is that an arbitration agreement or arbitration clause entered into during or after the conclusion of an employment contract is not valid. Other opinions, as explained above, defend the right of the parties to enter into contracts based on the regulation set forth in Article 20 of the Labor Law and the freedom of contract. Accordingly, they accept that arbitration agreements will be valid.
Another controversial issue is; when an arbitration agreement is made regarding the dispute between the employee and the employer, if the dispute in question is a matter that is within the scope of mediation as a condition of litigation, which alternative dispute resolution method will gain priority and be applied. Paragraph 18 of Article 18 titled “Mediation as a condition of litigation” of the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes stipulates that “In cases where there is an obligation to resort to arbitration or another alternative dispute resolution method in special laws or where there is an arbitration agreement, the provisions regarding mediation as a condition of litigation shall not apply.” According to the relevant provision, if the parties have made an arbitration agreement between them, the provisions regarding mediation as a condition of litigation will not apply and the parties will give priority to arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method.
As a result, it is still controversial which disputes regarding individual labor disputes may or may not be considered arbitrable within the scope of arbitration. Just as the Insurance Arbitration Commission has been established for the resolution of insurance disputes through arbitration and arbitration proceedings are conducted by experts in the field of insurance, we believe that a similar application can be made for individual labor disputes and thus arbitration proceedings can be conducted by experts with certain competencies. Accordingly, when the parties voluntarily intend to resolve their disputes through arbitration, the parties will feel more confident in using this alternative solution method, considering that they will have the expertise in labor disputes and will be able to master the concrete case in order to avoid loss of rights.
IV. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the application of alternative dispute resolution methods in the field of labor law offers a new perspective for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers. In order to implement these methods more effectively, it is necessary to review the relevant legislation, to resolve the problems arising in practice, and to carry out training and information activities in order to implement these methods more widely. In addition, the application of alternative dispute resolution methods in the field of labor law is important not only for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers, but also for ensuring social peace and justice. Indeed, considering the length of the judicial processes, both the loss of the belief in justice and the concerns of individuals that they will not be able to obtain their rights come to the fore. Therefore, the effective implementation of these methods requires the cooperation and contributions of all relevant parties. In particular, during the implementation of methods such as mediation and arbitration, it is necessary to protect the rights and interests of the partiesto provide a fair and impartial environment for the resolution of disputes, and to establish the necessary infrastructure for the widespread implementation of these methods. In this way, the implementation of alternative dispute resolution methods in the field of labor law can be realized in a more effective and efficient manner and can make a significant contribution to ensuring social peace and justice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BUĞRA AYDIN, “Individual Labor Disputes and Arbitration”, Marmara University Law Faculty Journal of Legal Research, C. 21, S. 2, 2015.
EDA MANAV ÖZDEMİR, “Evaluations on Alternative Resolution Methods and Arbitration in Individual Labor Disputes”, Registry Labor Law Journal, C. 2, S. 50, p. 127-150, 2023.
EMİNE TUNCAY SENYEN KAPLAN, Individual Labor Law, 13th Edition, İstanbul, 2023.
ERCÜMENT ÖZK AR ACA / NURŞEN CANİKLİOĞLU/ NURİ ÇELİK/ TALAT CANBOLAT, Labor Law Courses, 36th Edition, İstanbul, 2023.
HAMDİ MOLLAMAHMUTOĞLU/ MUHİTTİN ASTARLI/ ULAŞ BAYSAL , Labor Law, 7th Edition, İstanbul, 2022.
MUSTAFA ÇİÇEK, Compulsory Mediation in Labor Law, 2nd Edition, İstanbul, 2019.
MUSTAFA SERDAR ÖZBEK, Alternative Dispute Resolution, 5th Edition, İstanbul, 2022.
MÜJGAN YÜCEL, “The Scope of the Decisions of the Special Arbitrator in Objection to the Notice of Termination, A Decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Decision of the Special Arbitrator without Specifying the Amount of Compensation in Case of Nonemployment”, Marmara University Faculty of Law Journal of Legal Research, C. 14, S. 3, 2008.
OĞUZ TEZCAN, “Individual Labor Disputes in Turkish Labor Life and Ways of Resolution”, https://ekutuphane.csgb.gov.tr/ Media/mtfp5ixe/t%C3%BCrk-%C3%A7al%C4%B1%C5%9Fma-hayat%C4%B1nda-bireysel-i%C5%9F-uyu%C5%9Fmazl%C4%B1klar%C4%B1-ve-%C3%A7%C3%B6z%C3%BCm-yollar%C4%B1. pdf (Date of Access, 13.01.2025).
OLGU ÖZDEMİR, “Mediation in Individual Labor Disputes”, İstanbul University Law Faculty Journal, C.1, Special Issue, pp. 601-615.
ÖMER EKMEKÇİ/ ESRA YİĞİT, Individual Labor Law, 6th Edition, İstanbul, 2024.
SARPER SÜZEK, Labor Law, 24th Edition, İstanbul, 2024.
TAHA POLAT GEÇMEZ , Compulsory Mediation in Individual Labor Law, 1st Edition, İstanbul, 2020.
TURHAN ESENER, Peaceful Resolution of Disputes in Labor Law, 1st Edition, İstanbul, 1970.
FOOTNOTE
1 Turhan Esener, Peaceful Resolution of Disputes in Labor Law, 1st Edition, İstanbul, 1970, p. 3.
2 Court of Cassation 9th H.D., T. 23.10.2023, E. 2023/10079, K. 2023/15580. https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/ (Accessed on 13.01.2025).
3 Court of Cassation 9th H.D., T. 25.02.2013, E. 2013/1773, K.2013/6664. https://karararama. yargitay.gov.tr/ (Date of access, 04.02.2025).
4 Müjgan Yücel, “The Scope of the Decisions of the Special Arbitrator in Objection to the Termination Notice, A Decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation Regarding the Decision of the Special Arbitrator without Specifying the Amount”, Marmara University Faculty of Law Journal of Legal Research, C. 14, S. 3, 2008.
5 Sarper Süzek, Labor Law, Istanbul 2021, p. 638; Çelik/ Caniklioğlu/ Canbolat/ Özkaraca, p. 584-585; Senyen Kaplan, p. 423; Mollamahmutoğlu/ Astarlı/ Baysal, p. 1086; Şahin Emir, p. 919 et al.
6 A. Buğra Aydın, “Individual Labor Disputes and Arbitration, A Tribute to Prof. Dr. Mehmet Akif Aydın”, Marmara University Law Faculty Journal of Legal Research, vol. 21, p. 2, 2015.
