Employment 2026 Comparisons

Although the distinction between blue-collar and white-collar employees is widely recognised in Turkish employment practice, it is not expressly regulated as a separate legal status under the Turkish Labour Law No. 4857. The distinction is primarily based on the nature of the work performed, the scope of the employee’s duties and the employee’s function within the organisation. Blue-collar employees are predominantly engaged in manual work, including production, maintenance, logistics and field operations, whereas white-collar employees generally perform administrative, technical, professional or managerial duties. As a general rule, however, both categories are subject to the same fundamental employment legislation.

In practice, differences may arise between blue-collar and white-collar employees with respect to working time arrangements, remuneration structures, bonus schemes and performance evaluation systems. In particular, blue-collar employees are more frequently covered by collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and exhibit higher levels of trade union membership.

In addition to the distinction between blue-collar and white-collar employees, Turkish law recognises various other categories of employees, including:

• full-time and part-time employees;
• employees engaged under fixed-term and indefinite-term employment contracts;
• temporary agency workers;
• remote workers; and
• employees subject to special legislation applicable to the maritime, press and certain other sectors.

In addition, the status of an employer representative is of particular significance under Turkish employment law. Although employer representatives exercise managerial and organisational authority on behalf of the employer, they generally retain their status as employees within the meaning of the Labour Law. However, certain exceptions apply with respect to employment security provisions for senior executives who are authorised to manage the entire undertaking or who jointly exercise the authority to recruit and dismiss employees on behalf of the employer.

Under Turkish employment law, employment contracts are primarily classified into two categories: indefinite-term employment contracts and fixed-term employment contracts. An indefinite-term employment contract is concluded without any predetermined duration and constitutes the principal form of employment contract under Turkish law. By contrast, a fixed-term employment contract may only be concluded where objective grounds exist, such as the completion of a specific task, the occurrence of a particular event or the existence of a temporary operational need. Accordingly, indefinite-term employment contracts are the general rule, whereas fixed-term employment contracts constitute an exception. Successive fixed-term employment contracts concluded without objective justification may be deemed to have been converted into an indefinite-term employment contract from the outset.

As a general rule, employment contracts are not subject to any specific form requirement and may therefore be concluded orally through the mutual declarations of intent of the parties. However, fixed-term employment contracts with a duration of one year or more must be executed in writing.

Employment contracts should clearly and unambiguously set out the parties’ respective rights and obligations. In practice, employment contracts typically include provisions addressing the following matters:

• identification and contact details of the parties;
• job description, place of work and job title;
• salary, fringe benefits and payment terms;
• working hours, overtime and leave entitlements; and
• probationary period, termination provisions, confidentiality obligations and data protection obligations.

In addition, provisions relating to post-termination non-compete obligations, intellectual property rights, compliance with company policies, and disciplinary rules are frequently incorporated into employment contracts. Such provisions must not conflict with the mandatory provisions of Turkish employment law or impose disproportionate obligations on the employee.

When preparing employment contracts under Turkish law, consideration must be given not only to the Labour Law but also to the Turkish Code of Obligations, the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law, and the legislation governing the protection of personal data. Furthermore, where a CBA is in force, individual employment contracts may not contain provisions contrary to that CBA.

Working time in Türkiye is primarily governed by the Labour Law. As a general rule, the maximum statutory working time is 45 hours per week, which, unless otherwise agreed, is distributed equally among the working days of the week. Daily working time may not, as a general rule, exceed 11 hours. These statutory limits are mandatory in nature and are interpreted in conjunction with occupational health and safety principles.

Flexible working arrangements are recognised under Turkish law and are primarily implemented through mechanisms such as remote working, part-time employment and the balancing (equalisation) system. Under the balancing system, employees may work more than 45 hours in certain weeks, provided that the average weekly working time does not exceed the statutory limit during the applicable balancing period. In order for flexible working arrangements to be valid, they should be expressly regulated in the employment contract or under a separate written agreement, and, where required by law, the employee’s consent must be obtained.

With respect to part-time employment, the employee’s normal weekly working hours must be substantially lower than those of a comparable full-time employee. Part-time employment contracts should specify the employee’s working hours, while remuneration and employment-related benefits must be determined on a pro rata basis. Part-time employees are protected by the principle of equal treatment and may not be treated less favourably than comparable full-time employees unless such differential treatment is justified by objective grounds.

Overtime work is subject to strict statutory regulation under Turkish law. Work performed in excess of 45 hours per week constitutes overtime and generally requires the employee’s consent. Overtime must be compensated at 150% of the employee’s normal hourly wage, although the employee may alternatively be granted compensatory time off in accordance with the Labour Law. In any event, overtime may not exceed 270 hours per year, and any work exceeding this statutory limit constitutes a breach of Turkish labour legislation.

For employees in the private sector, the statutory minimum wage is determined and announced by the competent public authorities at the beginning of each year, and no employee may be paid below this amount. In cases where employment covers only part of a month, rather than a full monthly working period, the minimum payable wage is calculated on a pro rata basis by dividing the monthly statutory minimum wage by 30 to determine the applicable daily minimum wage. Accordingly, the statutory minimum wage constitutes the minimum remuneration that may lawfully be paid to employees.

Turkish law does not recognise a mandatory or generally applicable 13th-month salary. However, additional payments such as bonuses, premiums, fuel allowances, holiday bonuses or similar benefits may be agreed under an individual employment contract, a CBA or established workplace practice. Where such benefits have become contractual entitlements or constitute a consistent and established workplace practice, they become binding on the employer.

Bonus and incentive schemes are recognised under Turkish employment law and are principally governed by contractual arrangements. Where bonuses or incentive payments are granted regularly and consistently by the employer, they may become an established workplace practice and give rise to vested rights in favour of employees. Consequently, the withdrawal or amendment of such benefits may, in certain circumstances, constitute a material amendment to the employee’s working conditions, requiring the employee’s written consent in accordance with the Labour Law.

Annual paid leave is governed by the Labour Law and varies between 14 and 26 days, depending on the employee’s length of service. Employees under the age of 18 and over the age of 50 are entitled to a minimum of 20 days of annual paid leave.

Maternity leave is a mandatory statutory entitlement under Turkish law and generally consists of 24 weeks, covering the periods before and after childbirth. During this period, income replacement is provided not by the employer but by the Social Security Institution (SSI) in the form of a temporary incapacity benefit. Turkish legislation also provides for additional statutory leave entitlements, including paternity leave, adoption leave and nursing leave. Likewise, in cases of illness or temporary incapacity for work, the employee may receive temporary incapacity benefits from the SSI, while the employment contract may remain suspended throughout the relevant period.

In cases of disability or long-term illness, termination of employment is permissible only under specific statutory conditions and is generally regarded as a measure of last resort. The employer’s right to terminate remains subject to the employment security provisions of the Labour Law, including the requirement of a valid ground for dismissal. Although Turkish law does not provide for a general statutory entitlement to extended unpaid childcare leave, unpaid leave arrangements may be granted with the employer’s consent or pursuant to the provisions of a CBA.

Confidentiality obligations are recognised and enforceable under Turkish law and may, where contractually agreed, continue after the termination of the employment relationship in order to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests. Such obligations must, however, comply with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness and may not impose excessive restrictions on the employee’s right to work or freedom of expression. Similarly, non-disparagement clauses are generally enforceable, provided that they are assessed in light of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and the principle of good faith.

An employee’s liability for damage caused to the employer is governed by the Turkish Code of Obligations and is based on the principle of fault; Turkish law does not recognise a regime of strict liability in this context. In determining liability, the courts take into account the nature of the work, the allocation of operational risks, and the employee’s position and responsibilities, while applying the principle of interpretation in favour of the employee where appropriate.

Post-termination non-compete obligations are primarily governed by Articles 444–447 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. While an employee’s obligation not to compete with the employer during the course of employment constitutes a natural extension of the employee’s duty of loyalty, post-termination non-compete obligations are enforceable only if certain statutory validity requirements are satisfied. In order for a non-compete agreement to be valid, the following principal conditions must be met:

• The non-compete agreement must be executed in writing;
• The employer must have a legitimate and protectable interest, such as its customer base, manufacturing secrets or confidential business information;
• The employee must have access to such information in a manner that creates the potential to cause significant harm to the employer if the employee competes; and
• The non-compete restriction must not impose excessive limitations on the employee’s economic future or professional activity.

In addition to these statutory requirements, a non-compete covenant must be reasonable in terms of its duration, geographical scope and subject matter. Under the Turkish Code of Obligations, such restrictions are, as a general rule, enforceable for a maximum period of two years, although a shorter duration may be required depending on the circumstances of the particular case. Likewise, both the territorial scope and the scope of the restricted activities must be clearly defined and may not be so broad as to effectively prevent the employee from pursuing their profession. Restrictions that effectively exclude the employee from the labour market are likely to be deemed unenforceable.

In the event of a breach of a valid non-compete covenant, the employer may seek compensation for the losses suffered and, where contractually agreed, may also claim the contractual penalty (liquidated damages). The employer may further request injunctive relief to prevent the continuation of the competing activity. However, Turkish courts are authorised to reduce contractual penalties and damages on the grounds of equity and proportionality. Furthermore, where the scope of a non-compete covenant is excessively broad, the courts may declare the restriction wholly or partially unenforceable.

Non-solicitation covenants relating to employees and customers are not expressly regulated under Turkish law by a specific statutory framework. Accordingly, their validity and enforceability are primarily assessed under the principles of freedom of contract set out in the Turkish Code of Obligations, the principle of good faith under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code, and the employer’s legitimate and protectable business interests. The protection of the employer’s customer base, trade secrets and organisational structure constitutes the principal justification for such restrictions. However, these covenants must not impose excessive restrictions on the employee’s economic future or professional freedom.

Employee non-solicitation provisions are primarily intended to protect the employer’s key workforce by preventing the systematic recruitment or solicitation of its employees. However, such restrictions may not be interpreted so broadly as to produce the same effect as an overly restrictive non-compete covenant or to eliminate employees’ freedom of movement within the labour market. Accordingly, Turkish courts subject employee non-solicitation clauses to a particularly strict proportionality review. Their enforceability ultimately depends on whether they strike a fair balance between the employer’s legitimate interests and the employee’s freedom to pursue employment.

In the event of a breach, the employer may claim the contractual penalty, provided that such remedy has been agreed by the parties, and may also seek compensation for any losses suffered under the general provisions of Turkish law. Nevertheless, Turkish courts have the authority to reduce contractual penalties that are considered excessive. Furthermore, depending on the circumstances of the case, the provisions governing unfair competition under Article 54 et seq of the Turkish Commercial Code may also apply. Consequently, non-solicitation covenants are assessed from both a contractual and an unfair competition law perspective.

Data privacy in employment relationships in Türkiye is primarily governed by the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (PDPL). Similar to the EU General Data Protection Regulation, the PDPL is based on the principles of lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, and data minimisation in the processing of personal data. Employers process employees’ personal data in their capacity as data controllers and are required to fulfil their information obligations both at the commencement of employment and throughout the employment relationship.

Employers are also required to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect employees’ personal data against unauthorised access, loss or disclosure. This obligation arises under both the PDPL and the relevant secondary legislation, and non-compliance may result in administrative fines as well as civil liability. Furthermore, certain categories of employee data must continue to be retained and subsequently destroyed in accordance with the applicable statutory retention periods and data destruction policies, even after the termination of the employment relationship.

Non-compliance with the PDPL may result in administrative sanctions being imposed by the Personal Data Protection Board, in addition to potential civil liability for damages. Certain serious violations may also give rise to criminal liability under the Turkish Criminal Code. Consequently, compliance with data protection legislation has become a fundamental component of employers’ broader corporate compliance obligations, particularly in the context of employment relationships.

The employment of foreign nationals in Türkiye is subject to a strict work authorisation regime governed by the International Labour Force Law No. 6735. As a general rule, foreign nationals must obtain a work permit from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in order to work legally in Türkiye. Employing a foreign national without a valid work permit may result in administrative sanctions and, in certain cases, measures extending to the suspension of the relevant business activities. This framework is intended to regulate and control the participation of foreign labour in the Turkish labour market.

Employers must also ensure compliance with the applicable social security and residence permit requirements. As a valid work permit may also serve as a residence permit, maintaining the validity and continuity of the relevant authorisations is of critical importance. Employers are responsible for registering foreign employees with the SSI and fulfilling all related social security contribution obligations.

In practice, employing foreign nationals requires not only obtaining the necessary work permit but also ensuring its continuous validity and timely renewal. Work permits are granted for limited periods and must be renewed before their expiry. Furthermore, changes in the employer or, in certain circumstances, changes to the employee’s position may require a new work permit assessment. Consequently, the employment of foreign nationals under Turkish law is regarded not as a static compliance exercise but as an area requiring continuous regulatory compliance and monitoring.

In order to employ a foreign national, the employer must first submit an electronic work permit application to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and obtain the relevant approval. Employing a foreign national before the work permit has been granted is unlawful and may give rise to administrative sanctions. Accordingly, obtaining a valid work permit constitutes the primary legal prerequisite for the lawful employment of foreign nationals in Türkiye.

Once the work permit has been granted, the employer must fulfil its registration and notification obligations before the SSI. Foreign employees are generally subject to the same social security regime as Turkish nationals, and the employer is required to submit the employment commencement notification and social security contribution declarations within the statutory deadlines. In addition, employers must regularly monitor the validity of both the employee’s work permit and, where applicable, residence permit. These registration and monitoring obligations form an integral part of the employer’s ongoing compliance responsibilities.

In certain sectors, the employment of foreign nationals may also require additional sector-specific authorisations or registration with the relevant professional bodies. This is particularly relevant in regulated professions, such as healthcare, education and certain technical occupations, where professional equivalency, licensing or other regulatory approvals may be required. Consequently, compliance extends beyond obtaining a work permit and includes satisfying all applicable professional qualification and registration requirements. Failure to comply with these additional requirements may affect both the foreign national’s right to work and the employer’s legal responsibilities.

Mobile working arrangements, particularly remote working and other flexible or location-independent working models, are governed in Türkiye by the Labour Law and the Regulation on Remote Working. Remote working is based on the performance of work outside the employer’s premises and may only be implemented through a written remote working agreement executed between the employer and the employee. Such agreement must clearly specify, among other matters, the manner in which the work will be performed, working hours, communication methods and data security obligations. The employer also retains the authority to determine the scope of remote working arrangements and to exercise organisational control over the performance of the work.

From a data protection perspective, employers are required, pursuant to the PDPL, to ensure the protection of employees’ personal data by implementing appropriate technical and organisational measures. Remote working environments require enhanced security measures due to the increased risks associated with remote access to corporate systems, cybersecurity threats and potential data breaches. Where employees use their own devices (Bring Your Own Device – BYOD), additional safeguards, such as access controls, encryption and logging mechanisms, are generally expected to be implemented.

With respect to occupational health and safety, employers are required to conduct risk assessments and provide employees with the information and training necessary for remote working to the extent required by the nature of the work. However, because the employer does not exercise physical control over the employee’s workplace, these obligations are applied more narrowly than in conventional workplace settings. In practice, employers are generally expected to provide guidance regarding ergonomics, workplace safety and the appropriate use of work equipment.

From a social security perspective, employees working remotely or under other mobile working arrangements remain fully subject to the Turkish social security system, and no separate insurance status applies. Employers must fulfil the same employment registration and social security contribution obligations as they would for employees working on-site.

Under Turkish labour law, sabbatical leave is not recognised as a statutory employment entitlement. Accordingly, sabbatical arrangements exist solely on a contractual basis through employer policies, individual employment contracts or CBAs. In practice, such leave is generally granted to employees who have completed a certain period of service for purposes such as professional development, personal leave, research or academic activities.

Sabbatical leave may be structured as either paid or unpaid leave. Where paid sabbatical leave is offered, the employer should establish the relevant entitlement through a clear written policy or contractual provision; otherwise, no obligation to continue salary payments arises. Unpaid sabbatical leave is generally characterised as a suspension of the employment contract, during which the employee’s entitlement to remuneration, fringe benefits and certain employment-related rights depends on the agreement of the parties. Accordingly, sabbatical leave is generally regarded as a legal arrangement under which the employment relationship continues while the parties’ primary obligations are temporarily suspended.

From a legal perspective, the principal limitation is that sabbatical policies must comply with the principle of equal treatment and the principle of good faith. Employers may not apply such policies arbitrarily or discriminate between employees who are in comparable circumstances, and any distinctions must be based on objective criteria. For this reason, sabbatical leave should be carefully regulated through clear contractual provisions that define the rights and obligations of both parties.

The concept of “new work” has significantly transformed workplace organisation through digitalisation, technological developments and the growing emphasis on flexible working practices. One of the most common manifestations of this trend is desk sharing, whereby employees no longer have permanently assigned workstations but instead use shared workspaces on a flexible basis. Another widely adopted model is activity-based working, which allows employees to perform different tasks in designated areas, such as focus rooms, meeting spaces or collaborative zones, depending on the nature of their work. These models optimise office utilisation while supporting hybrid working arrangements.

The new work approach also places greater emphasis on flexible working hours and results-oriented working models. Under these arrangements, performance is measured primarily by outputs rather than by the amount of time spent at work, allowing employees greater autonomy in managing their working schedules. At the same time, these developments raise new employment law issues, particularly regarding the monitoring of working time and the identification of overtime work. The increasingly blurred boundaries between working time and personal time in digital working environments have prompted renewed legal debate concerning the interpretation of statutory working time rules.

Finally, new working models create additional compliance obligations in areas such as occupational health and safety, data protection and the employer’s duty of care. Remote and flexible working arrangements have heightened the importance of digital security, ergonomic working conditions and the management of psychosocial risks. As a result, employers are increasingly adopting more comprehensive internal policies and compliance mechanisms to address these emerging challenges.

Trade unions in Türkiye are legal entities established under Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements with the primary purpose of protecting and promoting the economic and social rights and interests of employees. By transforming employees’ comparatively weak individual bargaining power into collective representation, trade unions constitute the principal actors within the collective bargaining system. Accordingly, they represent both an expression of the constitutional freedom of association and a cornerstone of Turkish collective labour law.

The most significant function of trade unions is their authority to conclude CBAs. A trade union that satisfies the statutory representativeness thresholds at both the sectoral and workplace (or enterprise) levels is entitled to negotiate and execute a binding CBA with the employer or the relevant employers’ association. Such agreements regulate fundamental employment terms, including working conditions, wages and social benefits, and prevail over individual employment contracts where they provide more favourable provisions.

Trade unions also perform a significant role in the resolution of labour disputes and the maintenance of industrial peace. Collective labour law recognises strikes and lockouts as lawful instruments supporting collective bargaining where the statutory conditions are satisfied. Trade unions actively participate in mediation procedures and collective labour dispute resolution mechanisms as representatives of employees.

Trade union activities benefit from special statutory protection under Turkish labour law. Employers are prohibited from terminating employment or otherwise disadvantaging employees on the grounds of trade union membership or participation in lawful trade union activities. Any dismissal motivated by anti-union considerations is subject to stringent judicial scrutiny and may give rise to reinstatement claims and trade union compensation. Likewise, discrimination in relation to wages, working conditions or other employment rights based on trade union status is prohibited.

Trade unions are legal entities established to protect and promote the economic and social rights and interests of employees. The system of employee representation is designed to transform the comparatively weak bargaining position of individual employees into effective collective representation. The constitutional guarantee of the freedom of association constitutes the legal foundation of this representative structure. Accordingly, trade unions serve as the primary institutional mechanism through which employees are represented in employment relations.

Trade union representation is established on the basis of employees’ voluntary membership of a trade union. Trade unions are organised on a sectoral basis, and in order to acquire collective bargaining authority at workplace or enterprise level, they must satisfy the statutory representativeness thresholds prescribed by law.

Turkish law recognises certain limited forms of employee representation at workplace level. For example, employee representatives may be elected or appointed pursuant to occupational health and safety legislation. However, the authority of such representatives is considerably narrower than that of trade unions and is generally confined to matters relating to occupational health and safety. Accordingly, the primary system of employee representation in Türkiye remains centred on trade union organisations, while other representative mechanisms perform a complementary and more limited role.

In conclusion, the establishment of employee representative bodies in Türkiye is fundamentally based on the system of trade union organisation and statutory certification of bargaining authority. Trade unions function both as democratically constituted membership organisations and as institutional actors operating within a regulated legal framework. Within the system of collective labour relations, they constitute the principal bodies representing employees in their dealings with employers. Consequently, collective bargaining and social dialogue in Türkiye are predominantly conducted through the institutional framework of trade union representation.

CBAs constitute legally binding agreements concluded between a trade union and an employer or an employers’ association. These agreements regulate fundamental employment terms, including working conditions, wages and social benefits, and have normative effect over individual employment contracts. The provisions of a CBA apply directly to employees falling within its scope and are mandatory in nature. Accordingly, CBAs represent one of the principal legal sources governing wages and employment conditions under Turkish labour law. The statutory framework establishes the legal basis for collective bargaining between employers and employees’ representative organisations.

The conclusion of a CBA requires the existence of an authorised trade union. Bargaining authority is acquired by satisfying the statutory representativeness thresholds prescribed at both the sectoral and workplace (or enterprise) levels. This authority is formally certified through a determination procedure conducted by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Once the certificate of authority has been issued, the authorised trade union is entitled to commence collective bargaining negotiations with the employer.

CBAs are concluded for a fixed term, typically ranging from one to three years. During their term, matters such as wage increases, working hours and employee benefits are governed by the provisions of the agreement. Where the parties fail to reach agreement during the bargaining process, statutory collective dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation and, where legally permissible, strike action, may become available. This framework is designed to preserve industrial peace while maintaining an appropriate balance between the collective interests of employers and employees.

Under Turkish labour law, the employer’s obligation to state the grounds for dismissal is a mandatory requirement, particularly in respect of employees who fall within the scope of the statutory employment protection regime. Pursuant to the Labour Law, a notice of termination must be made in writing and must clearly and specifically set out the grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, Turkish law generally requires that the reason for termination be communicated at the outset, at the time the dismissal is effected. For employees who are not covered by employment protection provisions, the obligation to provide reasons is more limited. Nevertheless, every termination must comply with the overarching principle of good faith.

Turkish labour law prescribes different procedural requirements depending on the legal ground for dismissal. The principal categories of termination are the following:

• Summary dismissal for just cause: The employment contract is terminated with immediate effect, without any notice period.
• Termination for a valid reason: The employer must either observe the applicable statutory notice periods or make payment in lieu of notice. In addition, employees covered by the employment protection regime benefit from additional procedural safeguards.

This distinction forms the foundation of the Turkish legal framework governing dismissals.

Where an employee is protected by the statutory employment security regime, dismissal for a valid reason is subject to additional procedural requirements. In particular, the employer must:

• substantiate the dismissal with concrete and verifiable evidence;
• obtain the employee’s defence, particularly where the dismissal is based on performance or conduct;
• issue the notice of termination in writing; and
• clearly and specifically state the grounds for dismissal in the written notice.

Failure to comply with these procedural requirements may render the dismissal invalid.

The threshold for summary dismissal for just cause is considerably higher and requires misconduct or circumstances of such seriousness that continuation of the employment relationship cannot reasonably be expected. Typical examples include:

• breach of trust;
• unjustified absenteeism;
• conduct seriously endangering occupational health and safety; and
• acts contrary to honesty and loyalty.

In such cases, no statutory notice period applies. However, the employer must exercise the right of summary dismissal within the statutory limitation periods prescribed by law, and the burden of proving the existence of just cause remains with the employer.

Collective redundancies are subject to a separate statutory procedure under Turkish labour law. Where the statutory numerical thresholds are exceeded, the employer is required to:

• notify the Turkish Employment Agency (İŞKUR);

• notify the relevant Provincial Directorate of İŞKUR;

• consult with workplace trade union representatives, where such representatives exist; and
• conduct the process in a transparent manner.

Furthermore, collective redundancies must be based on legitimate economic, operational or technological reasons. These procedural requirements constitute the collective dimension of employment protection under Turkish labour law.

During a collective redundancy process, employers may also be expected to consider appropriate social measures aimed at mitigating the impact of the redundancies and preserving employment wherever reasonably possible. Failure to comply with the applicable notification and procedural obligations may expose the dismissals to judicial review and give rise to reinstatement claims and compensation liabilities. Consequently, collective redundancy procedures are subject to close scrutiny by both the competent administrative authorities and the labour courts.

The statutory notice periods applicable to the termination of indefinite-term employment contracts are governed by the Labour Law. The applicable notice period depends on the employee’s length of service, as follows:

• Less than 6 months of service: 2 weeks
• Between 6 months and 1.5 years of service: 4 weeks
• Between 1.5 years and 3 years of service: 6 weeks
• 3 years of service or more: 8 weeks

The parties must either observe the applicable statutory notice period or make payment in lieu of notice. These notice periods are mandatory statutory minimums and constitute one of the fundamental components of the Turkish employment protection regime.

As a general rule, a termination must be made in writing, and the grounds for dismissal must be stated clearly and specifically. In particular, where the employee falls within the scope of the statutory employment protection regime, the dismissal must be based on a valid legal ground. Compliance with these formal requirements is important both for evidentiary purposes and to ensure legal certainty. Furthermore, in certain cases, particularly dismissals based on the employee’s conduct or performance, the employer must obtain the employee’s defence before effecting the termination. In the context of collective redundancies, employers must also comply with additional statutory notification and consultation obligations.

Severance pay is payable independently of notice compensation, provided that the statutory conditions are satisfied. In general, an employee becomes entitled to severance pay upon completing at least one year of service and where the employment relationship terminates under one of the circumstances prescribed by law. Notice compensation, by contrast, arises where the terminating party fails to observe the applicable statutory notice period and does not replace the obligation to pay severance. These two entitlements are legally distinct and may be payable concurrently. Accordingly, depending on the circumstances of the termination, an employer may be required to pay both severance pay and notice compensation.

As a general rule, the termination of an employment contract does not require the prior approval or authorisation of any governmental authority. However, in specific situations, such as collective redundancies, employers are required to submit notifications to İŞKUR and the relevant administrative authorities. Employers must also comply with their internal procedures and established workplace practices where applicable. Accordingly, the Turkish system is based primarily on statutory notification and procedural compliance rather than prior administrative approval.

Summary dismissal for just cause under Turkish employment law is governed by Articles 24 and 25 of the Labour Law. Such termination is permissible only where the continuation of the employment relationship can no longer reasonably be expected in accordance with the principle of good faith. From the employer’s perspective, this generally arises from serious misconduct or conduct by the employee that causes significant harm to the workplace. From the employee’s perspective, circumstances such as non-payment of wages or serious breaches of working conditions may constitute just cause for immediate termination.

In cases of summary dismissal, no statutory notice period applies and the employment contract terminates with immediate effect. However, the right to terminate for just cause must be exercised within the statutory limitation periods prescribed by law. The employer should communicate the termination in writing and clearly specify the grounds for termination. Such clarity is particularly important for evidential purposes in the event of subsequent litigation.

Typical grounds that may justify summary dismissal by the employer include:

• misappropriation of the employer’s trust or breach of the duty of loyalty;
• unauthorised absenteeism;
• conduct seriously endangering occupational health and safety; and
• dishonest or other conduct contrary to the principles of good faith.

Although obtaining the employee’s defence constitutes an important procedural safeguard, particularly in conduct-related dismissals, there may be exceptional cases in which immediate termination is permissible without first obtaining such defence. Nevertheless, Turkish courts may consider the absence of the employee’s defence as a factor affecting the validity of the dismissal. Accordingly, employers generally follow the defence procedure with considerable care in practice.

In conclusion, summary dismissal produces immediate and far-reaching legal consequences for both employers and employees by bringing the employment relationship to an end without notice. However, where the right to terminate for just cause is exercised improperly or without sufficient legal basis, the dismissal may be held invalid, exposing the employer to substantial compensation liability. Judicial review primarily focuses on the existence of just cause and the employer’s ability to prove it. For this reason, employers should ensure that the dismissal process is carefully managed and supported by comprehensive documentary evidence.

Under Turkish employment law, the mutual termination of an employment relationship is generally permissible and is based on the principle of freedom of contract under the Turkish Code of Obligations. Such agreements enable the employment relationship to be terminated by the mutual consent of the employer and the employee. According to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, a mutual termination agreement constitutes an exceptional means of terminating an employment relationship that may preclude the application of statutory job security protections. However, its validity is subject to strict judicial scrutiny with respect to the parties’ free will and informed consent.

Although Turkish law does not prescribe a mandatory form requirement for mutual termination agreements, they are, in practice, executed in writing. In addition, the Court of Cassation generally requires the existence of a reasonable benefit in favour of the employee as a condition for the validity of the agreement.

In practice, a valid mutual termination agreement generally provides the employee with benefits beyond the statutory entitlements. Such additional benefits commonly include:

• an additional payment exceeding the employee’s statutory severance and notice entitlements;
• financial compensation reflecting the employee’s waiver of job security rights; and
• clear determination of all payments to be made upon termination.

A mutual termination agreement cannot validly require the employee to waive all statutory rights without limitation. Employment-related receivables must be accurately calculated, the method and amount of payment must be clearly specified, and the agreement must be free from any element of coercion or defect of consent.

Under Turkish employment law, certain categories of employees benefit from enhanced protection against dismissal. In particular, employees covered by the statutory job security regime, pregnant employees, employees on maternity leave and employees engaged in trade union activities are afforded increased protection, and an employer’s right to terminate their employment is subject to more stringent legal requirements.

Employees falling within the scope of the statutory job security regime may only be dismissed on the basis of a valid reason as prescribed by law. The employer is required to communicate the grounds for dismissal in writing and, where challenged, bears the burden of proving their validity. Pregnancy, maternity leave or the exercise of statutory leave entitlements cannot, in themselves, constitute valid grounds for dismissal. A dismissal based on such reasons may be deemed unlawful as a violation of the principles of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination.

Employees exercising trade union rights are likewise protected under a special statutory regime. An employer may not terminate an employment contract on the grounds of trade union membership, participation in trade union activities or involvement in the collective bargaining process. Such dismissals may be declared invalid, and the employer may also become liable for statutory trade union compensation. The purpose of this protection is to ensure the effective exercise of freedom of association and collective labour rights.

Workplace trade union representatives enjoy one of the highest levels of protection against dismissal under Turkish law. Their employment contracts cannot be terminated on grounds related to the performance of their representative duties, and any dismissal is subject to particularly strict judicial scrutiny. Where such a dismissal is found to be unlawful, the representative may seek reinstatement and benefit from the specific statutory remedies afforded to trade union representatives. These safeguards are intended to enable employee representatives to perform their functions independently and without employer interference, thereby ensuring the effective functioning of collective labour relations.

A wrongful dismissal claim arises where the employer terminates the employment relationship in violation of the substantive or procedural requirements prescribed by law. In particular, for employees covered by the statutory job security regime, the absence of a valid or just cause for dismissal constitutes the principal ground for challenging the termination. In addition, failure to provide written notice of termination, failure to specify the grounds for dismissal clearly and unequivocally, or non-compliance with the procedural requirements prescribed by law may also render the dismissal invalid. The employer bears the burden of proving the existence of the grounds relied upon for the dismissal.

The principal legal remedy available to an employee challenging a dismissal is a reinstatement claim. Employees falling within the scope of the statutory job security provisions may file a reinstatement action following the completion of the mandatory mediation process. If the court determines that the dismissal is invalid, the following legal consequences may arise for the employer:

• an order for the employee’s reinstatement;
• if the employee applies for reinstatement within the statutory period but is not reinstated by the employer, payment of reinstatement compensation in the amount determined by the court (generally between four and eight months’ salary, or up to 12 months’ salary in cases involving trade union-related dismissals); and
• payment of wages and other monetary benefits for the period during which the employee remained unemployed, limited to a maximum of four months until the court decision becomes final.

These remedies constitute the principal consequences of the statutory job security regime.

For employees who do not benefit from the statutory job security provisions, a wrongful dismissal may give rise to different legal consequences. In such cases, the employee may claim:

• severance pay;
• notice compensation;
• other employment-related receivables; and
• additional compensation under the Turkish Code of Obligations, where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Accordingly, under Turkish employment law, an invalid dismissal constitutes not only a dispute concerning the termination of the employment relationship, but also a legal mechanism capable of giving rise to significant financial and legal consequences for the employer.

The prohibition of discrimination under Turkish employment law is primarily governed by Article 5 of the Labour Law, the Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye and the relevant international conventions to which Türkiye is a party. Employers are prohibited from breaching the principle of equal treatment at any stage of the employment relationship, including recruitment, working conditions, remuneration, promotion, training, disciplinary measures and the termination of employment. Differential treatment based on language, race, colour, sex, disability, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect or similar grounds is considered unlawful.

With respect to the burden of proof, Turkish law adopts a facilitated evidential regime in discrimination cases in favour of the employee. The employee must first establish facts and indications that give rise to a strong presumption of discrimination. Once this threshold has been met, the burden of proof shifts to the employer, who must demonstrate that the differential treatment was based on objective and legitimate reasons or that the principle of equal treatment has not been violated. Accordingly, Turkish law departs, to a certain extent, from the traditional rules governing the burden of proof in order to enhance the protection afforded to employees.

Where the prohibition of discrimination is violated, the employee may claim discrimination compensation of up to four months’ salary pursuant to the Labour Law. In addition, the employee may seek compensation for any unpaid wages, employment benefits and other financial entitlements lost as a result of the discriminatory treatment. Where the discriminatory act also constitutes an unlawful dismissal, other statutory remedies, such as reinstatement, reinstatement compensation or trade union compensation, may likewise become available. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the employee may also seek moral damages under the provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

The digitalisation of employment disputes in Türkiye has developed significantly in recent years as part of broader judicial reforms aimed at transferring judicial processes to electronic platforms. Rather than introducing a procedural regime specific to employment law, this transformation has been implemented through the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 and the National Judiciary Informatics System (UYAP), which serves as the electronic infrastructure of the Turkish judiciary.

The use of electronic communication tools has also become increasingly common during the mandatory mediation process that precedes employment litigation. With respect to court hearings, the Code of Civil Procedure permits parties, witnesses, court-appointed experts and other participants to attend hearings through SEGBİS (the Audio and Video Information System) or similar audio-visual communication platforms, provided that the statutory conditions are satisfied. However, participation by video conference does not constitute an absolute procedural right and remains subject to the discretion of the court. This mechanism is most commonly utilised where the parties are located in different cities or where physical attendance would be particularly difficult. Nevertheless, the vast majority of hearings before Turkish labour courts continue to be conducted in person. Accordingly, remote hearings should be regarded as a complementary procedural mechanism rather than a substitute for conventional court proceedings.

Digitalisation extends beyond remote hearings and also encompasses the electronic service of court decisions and the online monitoring of case files and procedural developments. These innovations have contributed to making employment disputes more efficient and transparent, while offering significant operational advantages for both legal practitioners and corporate employers. Nevertheless, Turkish employment law does not currently provide for a fully digital litigation model or a specialised online employment court system.

Labour disputes in Türkiye are adjudicated by specialised labour courts, which operate separately from the ordinary civil courts. Labour courts are established under the Labour Courts Law No. 7036 and have jurisdiction over disputes arising from both individual and collective labour law.

Before initiating court proceedings, mandatory mediation constitutes a procedural prerequisite for certain employment disputes, including employee receivables, reinstatement claims and other specified matters. If the parties fail to reach a settlement during the mediation process, they may proceed by filing a claim before the labour court.

Turkish law does not recognise a class action mechanism comparable to that found in common-law jurisdictions. Nevertheless, where claims arise from the same legal or factual grounds, the procedural rules governing joinder of parties may apply, and similar cases may, under certain conditions, be consolidated. In addition, trade unions are authorised, in circumstances prescribed by law, to initiate legal proceedings either on behalf of their members or in their own legal capacity.

With respect to legal representation, parties may conduct litigation either personally or through legal counsel. Representation by an attorney is not mandatory in labour proceedings. Corporate employers may likewise be represented either by their authorised corporate bodies or by legal counsel. Although employer representatives may carry out certain procedural acts on behalf of the company, representation before the courts is, as a rule, conducted by attorneys holding a valid power of attorney.

Arbitration in employment disputes is generally governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the International Arbitration Law No. 4686. However, due to the employee-protective nature of Turkish labour law, significant limitations exist with respect to the arbitrability of employment disputes. In particular, disputes arising from individual employment relationships that concern rights over which the parties cannot freely dispose are generally not considered arbitrable. Disputes relating to job security provisions, such as reinstatement claims, are regarded as closely connected with public policy and are therefore, as a rule, not capable of being resolved through arbitration.

Pre-dispute arbitration agreements concluded at the time of entering into the employment contract or during the course of the employment relationship are assessed under Turkish law in light of the principle of employee protection. Given the inherent economic and legal imbalance between employer and employee, Turkish courts adopt a cautious approach when assessing the validity of arbitration clauses agreed before a dispute arises. In particular, provisions that restrict statutory employment rights in advance or effectively deprive the employee of the right of access to the courts may be held unenforceable. Accordingly, the validity of pre-dispute arbitration clauses is evaluated in each individual case, taking into account whether the employee’s consent was genuinely free and whether the clause produces unfair consequences to the employee’s detriment. Unlike common-law jurisdictions, Turkish law does not generally accord broad enforceability to pre-dispute arbitration agreements in employment contracts. Such clauses are subject to strict judicial scrutiny from the perspectives of employee protection and public policy. Consequently, Turkish law adopts a highly restrictive approach to the enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

By contrast, where the parties expressly agree to submit an existing dispute to arbitration after the termination of the employment relationship, such an agreement is more likely to be regarded as valid and enforceable. At this stage, the legal relationship between the parties has fundamentally changed, and the employee’s consent is generally presumed to have been given more freely. Nevertheless, even in such circumstances, only disputes relating to rights that the parties may freely dispose of may be referred to arbitration. Disputes involving matters of public policy or requiring the application of mandatory provisions of labour law may remain non-arbitrable.

In Turkish labour law, the rules governing litigation costs and attorneys’ fees are not subject to a separate employment-specific regime but are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a general rule, the unsuccessful party is ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. This principle applies equally to both employees and employers. Accordingly, the successful party is entitled to seek recovery of the litigation costs and the statutory attorneys’ fees from the opposing party.

The attorneys’ fee awarded by the court is distinct from the contractual legal fee agreed between a party and its legal counsel. Court-awarded attorneys’ fees are calculated in accordance with the Attorneys’ Minimum Fee Tariff, which is published annually, and are awarded directly in favour of the successful party. In addition, other litigation expenses, including filing fees, judgment and decision fees, expert witness fees, inspection expenses, witness expenses and service of process costs, are generally borne by the unsuccessful party.

As employment claims are frequently only partially successful, litigation costs and statutory attorneys’ fees are apportioned according to the respective rates of success and failure. Accordingly, unless a party is entirely successful or entirely unsuccessful, both parties may ultimately bear a proportion of the litigation costs. In particular, in claims relating to employment receivables, the courts calculate statutory attorneys’ fees proportionately based on the amount awarded. Likewise, attorneys’ fees may also be awarded in favour of the opposing party with respect to the portions of the claim that have been dismissed.