Your Employer Changed Your Job Role and You Refused? Here Is Why That Termination May Be Unjust

Moving an employee from a role they have long performed to a completely different and more onerous job, without prior notice and without their consent, is a problem frequently encountered in working life but often overlooked in legal terms. When the employee refuses the change, the employer may attempt to terminate without compensation on the grounds of "persistent refusal to perform their duties." However, the settled case law of the Yargıtay (Court of Cassation) establishes that such a termination is, in most cases, unjust.

In this article, we examine the concept of a substantial change in working conditions, the limits of the employer's managerial prerogative, and the employee's rights during the process of being asked to submit a written defense, in light of Yargıtay decisions.

Summary of the Situation

In a typical example, an employee who has long worked in a particular role (for example, an office-based position) is moved by the employer to a physically much heavier job of a different nature (for example, back-of-house services). The employee refuses the change and asks to return to their former role. The employer then asks the employee for a written defense and prepares to terminate the employment contract on the grounds of "persistent refusal to perform their duties." The employee's statement that "I will pursue legal remedies" is sometimes also put forward by the employer as a separate ground for termination.

The Legal Issue

The fundamental questions to be answered in disputes of this kind are:

• Is the change of role a "substantial change" within the meaning of Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857?
• Can the employee's refusal of this change be characterized as "persistent refusal to perform their duties" under Article 25/II-h of the Labor Law?
• Does the employee's declaration that they will pursue legal remedies constitute a breach of the rules of morality and good faith?

What Does the Yargıtay (Court of Cassation) Say?

A substantial change is not valid without the employee's written consent. Under Article 22 of the Labor Law, the employer may make a substantial change in the working conditions established by the employment contract or sources having the character of an annex to it only by notifying the employee in writing. Changes not accepted by the employee in writing within six working days are not binding on the employee.

Refusing a role change that was not accepted does not constitute grounds for just-cause termination. According to the Yargıtay 22nd Civil Chamber (E. 2016/13515, K. 2016/16784, T. 2016), the non-performance of work falling within the scope of a role change that the employee did not accept does not give the employer a right of just-cause termination. In another decision of the same Chamber (E. 2015/22492, K. 2015/29627, T. 2015), it was likewise emphasized that assignments amounting to an adverse change in working conditions are not binding on the employee. The Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber (E. 2016/9695, K. 2017/6343, T. 2017) has also expressly stated that refusing a substantial change cannot be treated as "persistently failing to perform an assigned duty" (a ground for just-cause termination).

The outcome is, at most, termination on "valid grounds." According to the Yargıtay 9th Civil Chamber (E. 2014/37030, K. 2016/7729, T. 2016), terminating the employment contract of an employee who does not accept an adverse change is unjust; such a situation can only give rise to a termination on "valid grounds," subject to compliance with the notice periods and payment of severance/notice compensation. In other words, at best the employer can carry out a termination with compensation; no right of just-cause (compensation-free) termination arises.

The managerial prerogative has limits. The employer's managerial prerogative is valid only insofar as it does not make the employee's working conditions more onerous and does not amount to a substantial change. According to the Yargıtay 22nd Civil Chamber (E. 2016/13969, K. 2019/11939, T. 2019), even where the contract contains a transfer clause, that authority cannot be used beyond reasonable limits or in a manner contrary to the principle of good faith.

The freedom to seek legal redress is not a ground for termination. An employee's statement that they will "go to a lawyer" or otherwise pursue legal remedies falls within the freedom to seek legal redress, which is a constitutional right, and does not constitute a breach of the rules of morality and good faith.

Points to Watch

• Check whether the role change was notified in writing. Failure to comply with the formal requirement of Article 22 of the Labor Law can render the change invalid from the outset.
• Assess the nature of the change. The physical demands of the work, the working environment, and the impact on your title and standing determine whether the change qualifies as "substantial."
• Document your health condition. Absences arising from medical reports are generally treated not as a just-cause ground but at most as a valid ground for termination; the employer cannot use this as a justification for forcing you into a heavy role.
• Respond carefully to the request for a written defense. In your defense, it is important to state clearly that the change is substantial, that you are ready to return to your former role, and that your stance is an exercise of a legal right rather than a "refusal to work."

Conclusion: What Should You Do?

Under the settled case law of the Yargıtay, terminating the employment contract of an employee who is subjected to a substantial change in working conditions and does not accept it is, in most cases, an unjust termination. In such a situation, the employee may be entitled to severance and notice compensation and, where the workplace conditions qualify, to claim reinstatement. If you have received a request for a written defense, it is very important that your response is supported by legal grounds. To manage the process correctly and claim your rights in full, we recommend seeking support from an employment law attorney.