In principle, statutory compensation related to the termination of an employment contract (severance pay and severance pay) does not in principle apply to valid reciprocal cancellation agreements. However, the parties may agree on another scheme for the payment of such compensation. In addition, when considering the “reasonable value” criteria, the Supreme Court ensures that compensation and additional payments are made as a valid factor for the mutual termination agreement. The validity of the reciprocal cancellation contract does not depend on a necessary concrete form. Thus, a reciprocal cancellation contract can be concluded either explicitly or implicitly, orally or in writing. In the absence of a form necessary for validity, the form of the agreement is of great importance for the evidence. Therefore, it would be advantageous to conclude in writing a cancellation agreement by mutual agreement in order to demonstrate the common will of the parties to terminate the employment contract. As a general rule, where agreed by management, meetings shall begin for approximately one hour at the end or beginning of a selected working day, subject to mutual agreement between the Union and the administration. Termination of an employment contract by mutual cancellation agreement is not a condition that triggers the right to unemployment insurance under Law No. 4447 on Unemployment Insurance. Finally, before implementing reciprocal cancellation agreements, the staff should be expressly informed and the reciprocal and common intentions of the staff should be demonstrated in order to reduce the risk of subsequent challenges to the invalidity of the legal effects of the agreement. Reciprocal cancellation agreements must be concluded in writing and the principle of “reasonable advantage” must be taken into account in the rights to be granted to the worker.
In particular, the granting of certain material benefits, in addition to ordinary statutory compensation, is essential to ensure the existence of the principle of “appropriate benefit”. The essential condition for the implementation of an amicable termination agreement is the existence of the “reasonable performance criteria” resulting from the court decision. The Supreme Court attributes the validity of the reciprocal cancellation agreement to the existence of a reasonable advantage from the point of view of the worker. The main ground underlying the Supreme Court`s criteria for “reasonable benefits” in mutual cancellation agreements is that, since the worker must receive severance and severance pay upon termination of the employment contract by the employer, the preference of another method, which is not more advantageous, cannot be considered appropriate during normal life. Therefore, in many cases, and in particular where the application for a mutual cancellation agreement is made by an employer, the Supreme Court expects certain additional benefits from a “reasonable benefit” in addition to the legal rights that would have been paid in the event of termination by the employer and not by a mutual cancellation agreement. Several Supreme Court decisions have invalidated mutual cancellation agreements, so that termination of the employment relationship is equated with “dismissal by the employer” in the absence of additional payments or benefits, and, as a result, related reinstatement claims have been accepted by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, where a worker is required to obtain an amicable cancellation agreement, the payment of statutory duties under a mutual cancellation agreement – which would not have been paid in the event of ordinary dismissal – is considered a `reasonable advantage`. Consequently, cancellation agreements concluded in this way are considered valid in principle.
If an employment contract is terminated for any reason, the entire unused paid annual leave must be paid to the worker, in accordance with section 59 of the Labour Act. . . .
