A precedent decision was ruled by the 13th Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice that the employee’s employment with a rival firm is not a crime unless it causes harm.
Subject of Litigation: Compensation claim filed because the defendant acted in violation of the prohibition of competition due to the fact that he started to work in another company operating in the same field, despite his commitment not to act in violation of the employment contract and the prohibition of competition.
Plaintiff and defendant companies operate in the e-commerce sector. It was claimed by the plaintiff company that the person working in his company acted contrary to the prohibition of competition by transferring to a company working in the same field, due to his trade secrets. The plaintiff company has requested the collection of the defendants jointly and severally, together with the commercial interest of 5,000 TL for now. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the case should be dismissed in terms of hostility. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that he could not demand a penal clause with the claim of the existence of a non-compete agreement, that the defendant worker did not work in a job or task where non-competition could be applied, and that there were no necessary conditions for the establishment of a non-compete agreement. Therefore, claimed that the competition agreement, which is the subject of the case, was invalid as it was not limited.
According to the Decision of the Court of First Instance: It is stated in the 48th and continuing articles of the Constitution that everyone has the freedom to work and contract in any field they wish. In Article 27 of the TCO, it is regulated that contracts that are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the law, morality, public order, personal rights or the subject of which is impossible are strictly null and void. Therefore, although the parties to the contract are free to determine the subject of the contract within the framework of the principle of freedom of contract, this freedom is not unlimited. Accordingly, the provision of the contract between the parties regulating the prohibition of competition, being contrary to the principle of freedom of work guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, and a contract to be signed by the parties will mean a violation of this freedom. Therefore, it is invalid because it is not possible for them to make any arrangements. Therefore, it was decided to dismiss the case. Thereupon, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
Reasons for Appeal of the Plaintiff’s Attorney: In the petition of the plaintiff’s attorney, it has been argued that the decision of the Court of First Instance regarding the rejection of the case is clearly unfair and unlawful, based on incomplete examination and erroneous legal assessments, that a competition agreement can be concluded and that this is not contrary to the freedom of work in the Constitution. In addition, it has been claimed that the worker works in a position where he knows the employer’s customer environment, production limits and the work done very well, and that he violates the prohibition of competition due to the possibility that he can use this information by switching to a rival company. Therefore, claimed that he was in unfair competition and demanded that the case be accepted.
According to the Decision of the Chamber: The Regional Court of Justice decided that the case be partially accepted, the decision of the Commercial Court of First Instance was repealed, and the chamber re-established a judgment on the merits. The non-compete registration is valid only if the service relationship provides the employee with the opportunity to obtain technical information about the customer environment or trade secrets and causes significant harm to the employer. Although the regional court of appeals concluded that the non-competition record was valid due to these issues, it required overturning the decision based on incomplete examination, since a job description and organizational chart for the relevant position were not presented. Upon the submission of the document containing the job description of the relevant worker and the workplace organization chart by the attorney of the defendants, the plaintiff is a low-level employee according to the hierarchical order in the workplace; it has been determined that the defendant is a mid-level manager at work.
Conclusion
Although the plaintiff has not been proven with a document containing the duties and responsibilities of the employee regarding the period he worked in their company, it has not been proven with legal evidence that he has knowledge of important trade secrets. Therefore, it was decided to reject the case because the non-competition record is not valid, since the claim that the worker may cause significant damage to the plaintiff company as a result of his employment with the competitor has not been proved.