Introduction

This study analyzes the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding whether an employee, who was dismissed by the employer and signed a document (release of claims/ibraname) stating “I have received all my rights,” can claim unpaid wages, overtime, and notice severance pay. The analysis focuses on fundamental legal issues such as the validity conditions of the release of claims (ibraname), the Supreme Court’s practices before and after the enactment of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, contradictions between the content of the release of claims (ibraname) and the employer’s defense, and the probative value of the document.

As a result of examining the Supreme Court decisions, certain fundamental principles emerge regarding the validity of the release of claims (ibraname) signed by the employee and its effect on receivables:

Legal Requirements for the Validity of the Release of Claims (Post-01.07.2012):

The Supreme Court seeks strict validity conditions for release agreements issued after 01.07.2012, when Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) No. 6098 came into force. Release agreements that do not meet these conditions are considered “absolutely null and void” . In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, numbered 2015/2005 E., 2016/12513 K., these conditions are listed as follows:

The release agreement must be in writing; at least one month must have passed since the termination of the contract as of the date of release; the type and amount of the receivable subject to the release must be clearly specified; and the payment must be made in full relative to the entitled amount and through a bank.

Invalidity of Release Agreements Obtained During the Continuation of the Employment Relationship:

 According to the settled case law of the Supreme Court, considering that the employee is dependent on the employer and their will might be under pressure, release agreements made during the continuation of the employment relationship are invalid. In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, numbered 2008/33618 E., 2010/22083 K., this situation was explicitly stated as,  “Release agreements made during the continuation of the employment relationship are not valid.” 

Releases Conflicting with Defense: A conflict between the matters written in the release and the employer’s defense in the lawsuit is an important reason leading to the invalidity of the release. For example, despite the employer arguing that the employee resigned, the release stating that severance and notice period compensation were paid is considered a contradiction by the Supreme Court and leads to the release losing its credibility. In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court numbered 2010/46459 E., 2013/7167 K., it was emphasized that such documents cannot be given value, stating, “The release, in this form, contradicts the defendant’s defense claiming that the plaintiff resigned and therefore was not entitled to compensation.” 

Effect of Releases With and Without Specified Amounts:

 Whether the debt items and their amounts are clearly specified in the release changes the legal nature of the document.

Releases Without Specified Amounts: The Supreme Court approaches releases containing general statements such as “I have received all my rights” and not itemizing debt amounts with skepticism. In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court numbered 2008/21802 E., 2010/6801 K., it was stated that granting validity to such general statements is erroneous, emphasizing, “According to the established practice of our Chamber, receivables in a release must be itemized.” 

Release Documents Containing an Amount: If a specific amount is stated in the release document and this amount has been paid, the document is considered a “receipt” for the paid portion. If the employee proves that their receivables are higher, the paid amount is offset, and the remaining amount is awarded. As stated in the decision numbered 2013/17628 E., 2014/29790 K. of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, “In cases of partial payment, the release is not given value, and the payment made is considered partial, with the release document acting as a receipt.”

Burden of Proof: The burden of proving that employee receivables have been paid rests with the employer. It is not sufficient for the employer to merely submit a signed release document; they must also prove the payments specified in this release document with valid documents such as bank receipts. In the decision numbered 2014/35462 E., 2016/6605 K. of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, “that the release document was invalid because the defendant did not submit a receipt or document proving that the plaintiff’s wages had been paid” the court’s finding in this direction supports this principle.

Review and Evaluation

For example, a document signed by an employee who has worked for 7 months, stating “I have received all my rights,” upon termination, will not constitute an obstacle to claims for 2 months’ wages, overtime, and notice pay. The main reasons for reaching this conclusion are as follows:

Violation of Article 420 of the TCO: A waiver must meet the conditions set forth in Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TCO). The document in the example was signed at the moment of dismissal; therefore, it violates the condition that “at least one month must have passed since the date of termination“. Furthermore, it is understood that the conditions of “the type and amount of the receivable must be clearly specified” and “the payment must be complete and made via bank” have also not been met. For this reason, the document is legally “absolutely null and void“.

Document Content: The document contains a general statement such as “I have received all my rights” and does not separately specify the amounts of unpaid wages, overtime, and notice period compensation claims. The established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Appeals indicates that such documents, which do not contain specific amounts and do not list claim items individually, should not be relied upon.

Non-Payment: It is clearly stated in the question that the relevant claims have not been paid. For a waiver to be valid, the fundamental element is the termination of a debt. A document signed without any payment being made does not terminate the debt and has no legal meaning. As long as the employer cannot prove that payment was made with valid documents, they cannot rely on this signed paper.

Conclusion

According to the evaluation made in light of Supreme Court of Appeals decisions, the document signed by the employee upon dismissal, containing a general statement such as “I have received all my rights”, does not constitute an obstacle to the employee’s demanding their unpaid monthly wages, overtime, and notice period compensation claims.

The document in question is absolutely null and void because it does not meet the mandatory validity conditions sought in Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (waiting at least 1 month after termination, specifying the type and amount of receivable, payment via bank). Furthermore, according to the consistent practices of the Supreme Court, no legal consequence can be attributed to such documents that do not contain an amount, do not itemize the receivables, are not supported by an actual payment, and have the potential to contradict the employer’s defense. If the employee files a lawsuit for their related receivables, the burden of proof will be on the employer, and unless the employer can prove that payment was made, the court will not rely on this signed document and will rule in favor of the employee’s receivables. A writing suggestion.

Why is Tuzla Lawyer Support Necessary?

Release forms signed by employees who are dismissed from work can often lead to loss of rights. Although Supreme Court decisions clearly specify the conditions under which these documents are valid or invalid, a correct evaluation of these conditions from the perspective of either the employee or the employer requires professional legal support. A wrong step can lead to the loss of important receivables such as wages, overtime pay, severance pay, and notice pay, which the employee has earned through years of work.

Working with an expert lawyer in this process is critically important, especially for those living in the Anatolian Side of Istanbul and its vicinity. Lawyers operating in the regions of Tuzla lawyer, Pendik lawyer, Kartal lawyer, Maltepe lawyer, Aydınlı lawyer, Orhanlı lawyer, Gebze lawyer, Çayırova lawyer, Tepeören lawyer, Darıca lawyer, and Bayramoğlu lawyer add value to the process with their local experience in managing labor claims, release agreement validity, and litigation processes.

Working with an expert lawyer in these regions is a critical need to both prevent workers’ loss of rights and to properly manage employers’ potential legal risks. Thanks to professional support, the validity of release agreements, proof of payments, and strategic steps in the litigation process can be planned correctly.