Aviation Employment Law

Within the framework of Aviation Employment Law, the termination of employment contracts for cabin crew due to weight gain is not merely an action based on physical change but requires the employer to adhere to specific legal obligations despite claims of breach of contract. In accordance with the precedents of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, if a cabin crew member subsequently fails to meet the height-weight criteria accepted upon employment, the employer is obliged to grant a reasonable period and investigate whether the employee's inability to meet these measurements stems from a health problem beyond their control. If involuntary reasons exist, the possibility of transferring the employee to ground services should be explored, and termination should only be considered if this alternative is not feasible. This approach is directly linked to the principle of termination as a last resort, one of the fundamental tenets of employment law. Consequently, every termination action undertaken by an employer must comply with both contractual obligations and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness embodied in the practices of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals.

In the context of Aviation Employment Law, during the process of terminating the employment contract of personnel who have lost their fitness for flight qualification, the employer has an obligation, in accordance with the principle of termination as a last resort, to consider the option of assigning the employee to ground services instead of direct termination. In a landmark decision by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, despite a clause in the employment contract granting the 'employer the right to terminate in cases preventing flight,' the court found that the employer's own procedural practices allowed for a transition to ground services. The failure to implement this alternative rendered the termination invalid. The decision considered not only the contractual provisions but also the employer's actual practices and internal workplace regulations, ruling in favor of the employee's request for reinstatement. Accordingly, in similar situations, along with the duty of equal treatment and objective evaluation, it is imperative for the employer to examine alternative employment opportunities in line with relevant provisions. Ultimately, this approach reflects the normative and practical considerations of the high court regarding the application of the principle of job security specifically within the sector.

Within the scope of Aviation Employment Law, the question of whether pilots can be evaluated under a job security regime is shaped by the Supreme Court of Appeals' decisions centered on the principle of termination as a last resort. In the precedent examined, it was ruled that the termination of a pilot's employment contract, ostensibly due to failure in flight training, was not based on a valid reason due to deficiencies such as the incomplete disciplinary board referral process, the denial of the right to repeat training, and the failure to observe a reasonable period before termination. The Supreme Court of Appeals rendered its decision by considering not only the employer's discretion but also the binding nature of workplace procedures and whether the opportunities that should have been afforded to the employee were provided. This approach constitutes a judicial policy that sets a precedent not only for pilots but also for other employees in the aviation sector, reinforcing the principle of job security at a sectoral level. Furthermore, the decision clearly highlights the importance of an employee being able to benefit from the rights under Law No. 4857 through Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions, regardless of the nature of the employment contract.

In the application of Aviation Employment Law, disciplinary processes conducted by airline companies against pilots and cabin crew often involve legal irregularities; the termination actions established as a result of these processes raise serious issues concerning the principle of termination as a last resort and the existence of just cause. Defenses made against disciplinary investigations, often prepared without legal basis, incompletely, or under duress, lead to employees being disadvantaged in litigation processes. When evaluated in light of Supreme Court of Appeals precedents and Collective Bargaining Agreement provisions, it is imperative that defenses against cases such as the use of medical reports, allegations of mobbing, or violations of the principle of equal treatment be structured with a clear and consistent legal methodology. This is because, in many instances, the legal structure of the defense statement can both cause the employer to reconsider their termination decision and serve as evidence in favor of the employee in a potential lawsuit. In this context, the disciplinary process should be regarded not merely as an administrative procedure but also as a decisive stage for future judicial review.

In the context of Aviation Employment Law, the question of whether pilots and cabin crew members are entitled to severance pay or an equivalent compensation upon terminating their employment contract after completing the required insurance period and premium payment days varies according to the legal regime applicable to the employee. Indeed, employees in workplaces where the application of the Labor Law provisions has been agreed upon through a Collective Bargaining Agreement may be entitled to severance pay based on Article 14 of the Labor Law; however, for employees subject to the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations, severance pay cannot be directly claimed, but a claim for reasonable compensation may be made. The current precedents of the Supreme Court of Appeals also indicate that personnel working under the Turkish Code of Obligations, if they meet the conditions of 15 years and 3600 days or 25 years and 4500 days, may terminate their employment contract for just cause, and in such a case, the court may award reasonable compensation within the framework of Articles 340-345 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, leaving the determination of 'reasonable compensation' to the discretion of the judge creates uncertainty for the employee and raises the risk of litigation costs and attorney fees due to the difference between the requested amount and the awarded amount. Consequently, this precedent, by recognizing the right of airline employees who have completed their insurance period to claim compensation also on the basis of the Turkish Code of Obligations, fills a sectoral gap with legal consideration and serves as a landmark decision.

With the entry into force of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 as of July 1, 2012, significant rights have been granted in the employment relationships of airline personnel falling outside the scope of the Labor Law, and regulations aimed at protecting employee claims arising from employment contracts and job security have been expanded. Provisions introduced in many areas, from overtime pay to holiday and leave entitlements, from penalty clauses to sanctions for unfair dismissal, are intended to prevent the loss of rights previously encountered by aviation sector employees in practice. With provisions such as Articles 433 and 438 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a compensation obligation has been introduced against the abuse of the right to terminate, and employee-favorable regulations, such as the inability to waive annual leave rights, have been explicitly guaranteed. Although the regulations concerning notice periods carry the risk of being applied in favor of the employer, it is generally observed that the new law establishes a protective area for airline employees that approaches a job security regime. Thus, the protective norms established in favor of personnel working under the Turkish Code of Obligations in contractual relationships within Aviation Employment Law should be regarded as a significant legislative development aimed at establishing sectoral justice.