Supreme Court Decision No. 2024/2063 E., 2024/2226 K. ON THE VOLUNTARY MEDIATION PROCESS
The Supreme Court, in its decision dated 24.04.2025 and numbered 2024/2063 E., 2024/2226 K. that the agreement record drawn up at the end of the voluntary mediation process is invalid on the grounds that it was created before any dispute arose between the parties and without reflecting the plaintiff’s true intent; it ruled that such a record would not prevent the employee’s request for reinstatement and would not produce legal consequences.
- Subject & Reason for Application
In the case subject to the relevant decision, the Plaintiff worked as a business development specialist under an indefinite employment contract with the Employer between November 11, 2019, and March 11, 2023. The employment contract was terminated on March 11, 2023, and two days later, on March 13, 2023, the Employer initiated voluntary mediation. At the end of this process, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of invalidity of the settlement agreement and reinstatement to work, claiming that the settlement agreement was signed under pressure, the mediator did not act impartially, and although the meetings were conducted via teleconference, they were presented as if they had been conducted face-to-face. The defendant’s representative argued that the plaintiff should have filed separate lawsuits for the cancellation of the voluntary mediation agreement and reinstatement to work, that the request for cancellation of the agreement was not timely, that the plaintiff cannot file a reinstatement lawsuit in his capacity as the employer’s representative, and that the lawsuit cannot be heard legally because there is a valid mediation agreement between the parties.
- First Instance Court Assessment
The First Instance Court issued an interim decision determining that the termination was invalid and that the case regarding reinstatement should be separated from this case and registered as a separate case. In the decision on the merits, the court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was no legal violation in the parties’ selection of the mediator, that the same mediator was not prevented from conducting multiple meetings with the Employer, that the plaintiff was informed during the mediation process, and that the allegations of vitiation of consent could not be proven.
- Appellate Court Assessment
Upon the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal, the Regional Court of Appeals determined that the mediation request was made by the Employer while the Plaintiff was on maternity leave, that the termination of employment was reported late to the Social Security Institution (SGK) system, and that the mediation process was initiated before any dispute arose between the parties. Witness statements also confirmed these facts. The Regional Court of Justice accepted the appeal on the grounds that there was no valid mediation agreement pursuant to Article 18/5 of Law No. 6325, that the plaintiff’s will had been vitiated, and that the minutes drawn up did not meet the legal requirements; it overturned the First Instance Court’s decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
- Supreme Court Assessment
The Court of Cassation stated that the dispute concerned whether the voluntary mediation agreement minutes drawn up under Article 18/5 of the Mediation in Civil Disputes Law No. 6325 (“Law No. 6325”)[1] constituted a valid agreement document and, therefore, whether it could be annulled. In the review, the parties’ statements, the documents they submitted, the legal rules applicable to the dispute, the conditions of the case, and the trial process were evaluated together; it was concluded that the Regional Court of Appeals’ decision was in accordance with the procedure and the law.
- Conclusion
In conclusion, in the specific dispute, the agreement memorandum drawn up at the end of the voluntary mediation process that the mediation process cannot be initiated before the dispute arises, that the dispute was not conducted in accordance with the procedure, and that it did not meet the legal conditions set forth in Article 18/5 of Law No. 6325. The Court of Cassation, in its appeal review, found this assessment to be accurate and upheld the relevant decision.
The decision is significant in that it establishes that the employer cannot abuse the mediation process to deprive the employee of their right to sue and that the existence of a valid agreement must be based not only on form but also on substantive freedom of will. This decision serves as a guide in similar disputes for the operation of the mediation institution in accordance with its purpose and for the protection of the fundamental rights of employees.
[1] Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Legal Disputes, Article 18/5: If an agreement is reached at the end of the mediation process, the parties cannot file a lawsuit regarding the agreed-upon matters.
