If a private security guard leaves his/her post, this may lead to neglect of duty or a serious breach of the obligation to fulfill his/her duty. According to Article 25 of the Labor Law No. 4857, the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract for just cause due to the employee’s “behaviors that endanger the safety of the workplace” or “behaviors contrary to the essential elements of the employment contract”. However, the employer’s right to terminate for just cause may vary depending on the nature of the concrete case.
In the precedent decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation No. 2007/34191 E. 2009/554 K:
“On 21.07.2004 at around 05:00, it was determined that the plaintiff was not present at the duty station. The plaintiff accepted that he was not present at the duty station in his defense petition dated 22.07.2004. The negligence of the plaintiff, who performs security duty, jeopardizing the security of the workplace is a justified reason for termination. This action of the plaintiff constitutes a violation of Article 25/2-h of the Law No. 4857. The termination made by the employer is justified and the acceptance of the plaintiff’s requests for severance and notice pay instead of rejection was erroneous and required a reversal.”
In this way, the security guard’s leaving the duty station was evaluated as a just cause for termination.
Similarly, in the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation No. 2015/25507 E. 2018/21371 K:
“Sleeping or leaving the duty station of the guard providing security services (Court of Cassation 9th HD. 4.11.2008 dated 2007/30651 E, 2008/30368 K.), smoking in the place where flammable and explosive materials are located, even though it is prohibited (Court of Cassation 9th HD. 21.12.2009 dated 2009/12861 E, 2009/36369 K.), neglecting the duty of the worker assigned to control a device that can work with pressure or high temperature can be given as examples of behaviors that endanger the safety of the work.
In the concrete dispute, in the face of the determination that the employee working as a security guard slept on duty, since it is understood that the plaintiff’s action constitutes a violation of Article 25/II-(ı) of the Labor Law No. 4857 and therefore the termination is based on just cause, the acceptance of the request for severance pay and notice pay should be rejected.”
As such, the private security officer’s sleeping and leaving the duty station are shown as examples of behaviors that endanger the safety of the work and are considered as just cause for termination.
