1. Definition and Legal Nature of SGK Exit Code 49
According to the information in the Supreme Court’s decisions, SGK exit code 49 means: “The employee’s persistence in not performing their assigned duties despite being reminded of them.” This code corresponds to a just cause for termination under Article 25/II-(h) of Labor Law No. 4857, within the scope of “situations that do not comply with moral and good faith rules” granted to the employer. Judicial decisions emphasize that for the employer to use this code, the employee must have been warned about not performing their duties, and this situation must be persistent (insistence).
2. Right to Unemployment Benefits for Employees Dismissed with Code 49
In recent decisions of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (e.g.: 2024/13450 E., 2025/700 K.)K, it has been clearly stated that if the termination code is reported as (49) according to the relevant legislation, the employee will not be able to receive unemployment benefits. Since this code represents a type of termination based on a just cause by the employer, it generally does not meet the eligibility conditions for unemployment benefits stipulated under Unemployment Insurance Law No. 4447.
3. Correction of the Code and Judicial Processes In disputes reflected in judicial decisions, it is observed that workers file lawsuits requesting the correction of Code 49 because they cannot receive unemployment benefits due to this code, to be corrected as “04-Termination of an indefinite-term employment contract by the employer without stating a just cause”.
Legal Interest: The Court of Appeals accepts that the employee has a current legal interest in cases requesting the correction of the termination code. Because the incorrectly reported code not only prevents the employee from receiving unemployment benefits but also, in new job applications, can negatively affect their freedom to work by creating a “bad reference”.
Burden of Proof: Courts rule that if the employer cannot prove their claim of “insistence on not performing duties” with concrete evidence (warning letters, minutes, etc.), the termination was unfair and the code should be corrected.
4. Additional Information Obtained from Secondary Sources The points in this section of the report are compiled from secondary sources in the provided responses:
Alternative Application Methods: In some Supreme Court dissenting opinions and references made to İŞKUR circulars; if the employee proves that they received severance and notice pay with a court decision or a mediation document, it is stated that even if the SGK exit code is 49, they can directly apply to İŞKUR and receive unemployment benefits. According to İŞKUR’s Passive Labor Force Services Circular No. 2020/1, the court’s determination that the termination was unfair can grant eligibility for unemployment benefits without the need for code correction.
Administrative Opinion: According to administrative defenses in Council of State decisions found in secondary sources, although SGK and the Ministry of Labor argue that exit codes alone do not prevent re-employment, court records show that in practice, discipline-based codes (such as Code 49) are cited as reasons for rejection in unemployment benefit applications.
Premium Condition: Even if a re-employment decision has been made, the condition that the premiums for the last four months must have been paid is sought for unemployment benefit payments. However, if there is a final court decision regarding the invalidity of the termination, the employee’s entitlement can be recognized even if premiums have not been paid. A writing suggestion.
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary for SGK Exit Code 49?
SGK termination code 49 is a severe code based on the accusation that the employee “insisted on not performing their duties,” resulting in **just cause for termination**. Notifications made with this code can lead to serious consequences such as the **rejection of unemployment benefits**, a **negative record perception** in new job applications, and **unfavorable evaluation in future labor claims lawsuits**.
The most common problem encountered in practice is the employer’s notification with Code 49 despite being unable to prove the elements of **warning, official report, and continuity**. According to Supreme Court rulings, if the fact of “insisting on not performing duties” cannot be proven with **concrete, written, and continuous evidence**, the termination is deemed **unjust**, and it becomes possible to convert the code to an employee-favorable code like **04**. This process requires technical rules of evidence and a correct litigation strategy.
Furthermore, if the unjustness of the termination is determined by a court decision or a mediation document, unemployment benefits can be claimed from İŞKUR **even if the code is not corrected**. However, for this path to be effectively utilized, it is essential that applications are made **in accordance with the procedure**, within the time limit, and with correct legal grounds.
Therefore, especially in regions where labor disputes are frequent, such as Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Gebze, the support of an expert labor law attorney is of great importance to avoid loss of rights against SGK exit code 49. Based in Tuzla, Istanbul, 2M Hukuk Law Firm, in disputes arising from Code 49; provides result-oriented legal support in accordance with Supreme Court precedents in code correction lawsuits, unemployment benefit applications, and termination review processes.
