Employment Law Newsletter I January-February-March 2025
Current News in Türkiye
January 2025
Updates on 2025 Minimum Wage, Severance Pay Cap and Administrative Fine Amounts
The statutory minimum wage, severance pay cap, and administrative fines stipulated under the Turkish Labor Law are updated at the beginning of each year. The updated amounts applicable for 2025 have come into effect as of 1 January 2025.
Minimum Wage
In 2024, the gross monthly minimum wage was TRY 20,002.50. This amount has been increased to TRY 26,005.50 gross, effective from 1 January 2025. The new minimum wage will remain in force between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025.
The minimum wage applies to all employees, regardless of age, sector, or experience. The only exception to this rule concerns employees employed underground in workplaces extracting hard coal and lignite, whose wages must be at least twice the statutory minimum wage.
Severance Pay Cap
Employees are entitled to severance pay equivalent to one month's gross wage for each completed year of service with the same employer, provided certain conditions are met. The severance pay cap is updated every six months. The cap applicable from 1 January 2025 to 30 June 2025 has been increased from TRY 41,828.42 gross to TRY 46,655.43 gross. The next adjustment will take place on 1 July 2025.
Administrative Fine Amounts
The Turkish Labor Law provides for administrative fines for various violations, including;
· the obligation to treat employees equally,
· the obligation to pay at least the minimum wage,
· the obligation to employ disabled persons,
· compliance with collective redundancy procedures
These fines are recalculated annually. Compared to 2024, administrative fines for 2025 have been increased by 43.93%.
February 2025
Constitutional Court Decision
Constitutional Court Decision dated 17/09/2024 with Application Number 2019/36380
Subject:
The application concerns the alleged violation of the right of access to court due to the rejection of a second amendment petition aimed at modifying the commencement date, type of interest, and the nature of the lawsuit regarding claims for labor receivables.
The applicant filed lawsuits before the court of first instance claiming labour receivables arising from a collective bargaining contract and increased the claimed amounts through their first amendment petition. Along with this petition, the applicant also requested that the highest deposit interest rate applied by banks as of the date of the lawsuit be applied to all receivables. Following this request, the applicant submitted a second amendment petition to the court of first instance, stating that the lawsuit had initially been filed as an unquantified receivable claim, but that they now wished to convert it into a quantified receivable claim, and further requested that the interest commencement date be determined as the payment date specified in the collective bargaining contract. In this second petition, the applicant additionally requested that the highest commercial loan interest rate be applied to all receivables (excluding the bonus payment receivable). However, the court disregarded the requests set forth in the second amendment petition.
In its admissibility review, the Constitutional Court determined that the application was not manifestly ill-founded and that there was no other ground requiring a decision of inadmissibility. Accordingly, it ruled that the allegation regarding the violation of the right of access to court was admissible.
In its examination on the merits, the Constitutional Court noted that a claimant may amend the matters asserted in the statement of claim by submitting an amendment petition once. In the present case, the Court found that the rejection of the applicant’s second amendment request did not impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant, and that the burden borne by the applicant was not disproportionate when compared with the legitimate aim pursued. Consequently, it was concluded that the court’s interference was proportionate. Based on these grounds, the Constitutional Court held that there was no violation of the right of access to court, which is safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial.
Judgment:
It was unanimously decided that:
· The allegation regarding the violation of the right of access to court was deemed admissible,
· It was decided by unanimous vote that the right of access to court, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial, was not violated,
· The legal costs are to be borne by the applicant.
Please refer to the decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/02/20250221-10.pdf
Presidential Decision
Presidential Decision No 9488
- Within the scope of the Presidential Decision No. 9488 published in the Official Gazette dated 01/02/2025 and numbered 32800, it was decided to approve the “National Employment Strategy (2025-2028)” (Date of Decision: 31/12/2025).
- The National Employment Strategy (2025-2028) is a strategic planning document prepared by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and published in the Official Gazette by presidential decree, aiming for a comprehensive transformation of Türkiye’s labour market. The strategy is built upon four main policy areas that aim to support the country's economic development and enhance social welfare:
1) Adaptation to Green and Digital Transformation with Skill Alignment: Strengthening the link between education and employment to adapt labour markets to green and digital transitions.
2) Enhancement of Inclusive Employment: Supporting access to the labour market for women, youth, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and international labour migrants who require special policy interventions.
3) Strengthening the Link Between Social Protection and Employment: Enhancing the inclusivity of the social protection system and improving access to fundamental rights.
4) Development of Sustainable Employment in Rural Areas: Developing strategies to increase economic diversity and improve labour conditions in rural areas.
Please refer to the presidential decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/02/20250201-3.pdf
March 2025
Institutional Court Decisions
Constitutional Court Decision dated 24/10/2024 with Application Number 2020/19910
Subject:
The application concerns the alleged violation of the right of access to court due to the dismissal of a re-employment lawsuit on the grounds that pre-litigation mediation, as a procedural requirement, had not been pursued.
The applicant claimed that they had completed the mediation application form under the guidance of the clerks at the mediation bureau, that the re-employment request was included in the mediation negotiations and reflected in the final record and therefore argued that they had fulfilled the procedural requirement of mediation. The applicant also contended that limiting the mediation process to the content of the application form effectively created a new procedural requirement, thereby violating the right to a fair trial.
Upon evaluating the case, the Constitutional Court concluded that the Regional Court of Appeal had interpreted the mandatory mediation requirement under Article 3 of Law No. 7036 in an overly rigid manner, which effectively prevented the applicant from accessing the court. Therefore, the Court noted that the interpretation regarding the absence of mediation for the re-employment request imposed a disproportionate burden on the applicant compared to the legitimate aim pursued.
Judgment:
It was unanimously decided that:
- The allegation concerning the violation of the right of access to court was deemed admissible,
- It was determined that the right of access to court, safeguarded under Article 36 of the Constitution as part of the right to a fair trial, was violated,
- A copy of the decision was ordered to be sent to the relevant courts for retrial to eliminate the consequences of the violation,
- The legal costs and attorney fees were ordered to be paid to the applicant,
- The payment is to be made by the Ministry of Treasury and Finance within four months from the notification of the decision to the applicant, and in case of delay, legal interest shall accrue from the end of this period until the payment date,
- A copy of the decision was also ordered to be sent to the Ministry of Justice.
Please refer to the decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250307-23.pdf
Constitutional Court Decision dated 05/11/2024 with E.2023/158 K. 2024/187
Subject:
The 27th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (Case No. 2023/158), the Istanbul 10th Labor Court (Case No. 2023/187), and the Ankara 11th Labor Court (Case No. 2024/100) referred certain provisions to the Constitutional Court for annulment, alleging their unconstitutionality in cases concerning receivables arising from employment contracts.
The subject matter of the objection concerns the request for annulment of paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 27 of the Law on Private International Law and Procedural Law (“LPILP”) on the grounds that they are contrary to the Preamble and Articles 2, 5, 10, 13, 35, 36, 49, 55, and 90 of the Turkish Constitution.
Article 27(1) of the LPILP allows the parties to an employment contract to choose the applicable law governing the substance of the contract, provided that the employee retains the minimum protection afforded by the mandatory provisions of the law of the habitual workplace. Article 27(2) stipulates that in the absence of a choice of law by the parties, the law of the country where the employee habitually performs their work shall apply, and if the employee temporarily works in another country, that workplace shall not be considered the habitual workplace.
Upon review, the Constitutional Court held that Article 27(1) of the LPILP, which allows for the waiver of employee rights through the choice of law, does not provide a reasonable balance in the employer-employee relationship and is inconsistent with the state's positive obligations to protect employees. Therefore, it was annulled for being contrary to Article 49 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right and duty to work.
Judgment:
- By majority vote, it was decided that Article 27(1) of Law No. 5718 dated 27/11/2007 is unconstitutional and annulled, with dissenting votes from Muhterem İnce and Ömer Çınar,
- By unanimous vote, the annulment shall take effect six months after its publication in the Official Gazette, pursuant to Article 153(3) of the Constitution and Article 66(3) of Law No. 6216 on the Establishment and Procedures of the Constitutional Court,
- By majority vote, with a dissenting opinion from Kenan Yaşar, it was decided that Article 27(2) of the LPILP is not unconstitutional, and the objection was rejected.
Please refer to the decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250310-5.pdf
Constitutional Court Decision dated 09/10/2024 with Application Number 2019/42221
Subject:
The application concerns allegations that the dismissal of an employee by a bank due to their social media posts violated their freedom of expression and right to respect for private life, and that the prolonged duration of the re-employment lawsuit violated their right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The Constitutional Court first examined the claim of “Violation of Freedom of Expression”. In the concrete case, the Bank terminated the applicant's employment contract, stating that the applicant's social media posts damaged the bank's reputation and image. As a result of its assessment, the Court concluded that the restriction imposed on freedom of expression did not render the right in question meaningless, met a compelling social need and was proportionate.
Secondly, the Constitutional Court examined the claim of “Violation of the Right to Respect for Private Life”. In the concrete case, the Bank stated that the applicant's social media posts damaged the reputation and image of the bank and that the termination of the applicant's employment contract fairly balanced the interests of the parties and that the intervention was proportionate. In this context, the Court concluded that there was no reason to depart from the detailed assessment made under the heading of freedom of expression.
Thirdly, the Court reviewed the claim regarding the "Violation of the Right to be Tried Within a Reasonable Time." It ruled that this part of the application was inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, specifically because the applicant had not applied to the Compensation Commission, which is considered a mandatory step under the principle of subsidiarity of individual applications.
Judgment:
- The allegations regarding the violation of freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life were deemed admissible by unanimous vote,
- The allegation regarding the violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time was found inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of remedies, by unanimous vote,
- It was decided, by majority vote with dissenting opinions from Hasan Tahsin Gökcan, Engin Yıldırım, Yusuf Şevki Hakyemez, Selahaddin Menteşe, and Kenan Yaşar, that the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 26 of the Constitution was not violated,
- It was also decided, by majority vote with the same dissenting opinions, that the right to respect for private life under Article 20 of the Constitution was not violated,
- Legal costs were to be borne by the applicant,
- A copy of the decision was to be sent to the Ministry of Justice.
Please refer to the decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250317-6.pdf
Presidential Decision, Regulation, Circular and Communique
Presidential Decision No 9537
- Published in the Official Gazette dated 05/03/2025, No. 32832. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 9537, the Agreement on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Employees and Their Family Members between the Government of the Republic of Türkiye and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan, signed in Tashkent on 30/04/2018 and ratified by Law No. 7508, was officially approved by the Presidency (Decision Date: 04/03/2025).
- This agreement aims to regulate the movement of migrant employees between the two countries, improve working conditions for employees, protect the rights of their family members, and enhance the living standards of migrant employees in Türkiye. It also seeks to provide solutions to potential problems faced by Uzbek migrant employees during their employment and residence in Türkiye.
Please refer to the presidential decision (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250305-3.pdf
Regulation on the Amendment of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Occupational Health and Safety Training for Employees.
Published in the Official Gazette dated 05/03/2025, No. 32832:
- Article 3 of the Regulation on the Procedures and Principles of Occupational Health and Safety Training for Employees, published in the Official Gazette dated 15/05/2013, No. 28648, has been amended. The legal basis of the Regulation has been revised to reflect Articles 86, 90, and 508 of the Presidential Decree on the Organization of the Presidency
- Article 12/7 titled "Basic Principles of Training" has been amended. The term “workplace” has been revised as follows:
"In public institutions classified as low-hazard and in workplaces with fewer than 10 employees classified as low-hazard, both initial and refresher trainings can be conducted via remote learning methods. In private sector workplaces with 10 or more employees classified as low-hazard, as well as in hazardous and very hazardous workplaces, refresher trainings may only be conducted remotely under certain conditions."
As a result of this amendment, both initial and refresher trainings can be delivered remotely in low-hazard public institutions and workplaces with fewer than 10 employees. However, in hazardous and very hazardous workplaces, and in larger private sector workplaces, only refresher trainings can be provided remotely, subject to specific criteria.
- Article 15/A(1)(b) titled "Basic Principles of Remote Education" has been amended. With this change, the delivery method of remote education has been tailored according to the hazard classification of the workplace.
As a result, the technical structure of remote training depends on the hazard level and number of employees. While flexible methods (synchronous/asynchronous) may be used in low-hazard and small workplaces, in larger or hazardous workplaces, trainings must be conducted synchronously, emphasizing the need for live interaction as risk levels increase.
- Article 15/A(1)(ç) has been amended to specify that:
"The content of basic training programs provided in public institutions classified as low-hazard and in workplaces with fewer than 10 employees classified as low-hazard shall be specifically tailored to the job. In private workplaces with 10 or more employees classified as low-hazard and in hazardous and very hazardous workplaces, the basic training content shall be designed to match both the level of participants and the specific characteristics of the workplace."
As a result, a tiered approach has been adopted based on workplace size and hazard classification. In small, low-hazard workplaces, job-specific content is considered sufficient, whereas in larger or higher-risk workplaces, the training content must include both level-appropriate and context-specific elements, thereby increasing depth and effectiveness based on risk level.
- The Regulation came into effect on the date of its publication.
Please refer to the regulation (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250305-10.htm
Regulation on the Amendment of the Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety Services to be Conducted by the Employer or the Employer's Representative in Workplaces.
Published in the Official Gazette dated 05/03/2025, No. 32832:
- Article 3 of the Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety Services to be Provided by Employers or Employer Representatives at Workplaces, published in the Official Gazette dated 29/06/2015, No. 29401, has been amended. The legal basis of the Regulation is now Articles 86, 90, and 508 of the Presidential Decree on the Organization of the Presidency.
- Article 5(1) titled "Provision of Occupational Health and Safety Services by Employers or Employer Representatives" has been amended.
As a result, employers or employer representatives are now required to allocate 10 minutes per employee for occupational health and safety services, and it is no longer mandatory to keep an approved logbook. Previously, it was obligatory to appoint an occupational safety specialist or workplace physician, but this requirement has been lifted. Therefore, this amendment introduces a more flexible approach, allowing employers or employer representatives to fulfill these duties without having to appoint such specialists.
- Article 5(5) has been amended, removing the requirement to pass an examination following the completion of training; completing the training is now considered sufficient.
- Article 5(8) has been amended. Previously, employers holding the “Certificate of Completion for Employer or Employer
- Representative Training on the Provision of Occupational Health and Safety Services” could only provide services for a single workplace. Following the amendment, it is now permitted for employers in workplaces with fewer than 50 employees, classified as low-hazard, within the same province, to provide services for multiple workplaces. However, this flexibility does not apply to employer representatives, who may still only provide services for one workplace.
- Article 6 titled "Occupational Health and Safety Training for Employees" has been amended, abolishing the examination requirement after training; completion of the training is deemed sufficient.
- Article 7(2) titled "Health Surveillance" has been amended. Previously, health services could be obtained from workplace physicians, family doctors, or public health service providers. The amendment stipulates that health reports should generally be obtained from workplace physicians, but in low-hazard workplaces with fewer than 50 employees, they may also be obtained from OSGBs, family doctors, or public health providers.
- Article 10(1) titled "Qualifications of Institutions and Trainers Providing Training" has been amended.
As a result, previously only universities authorized to provide distance education and having exam centers, offices, and academic counseling services in every province could offer training. Following the amendment, the scope has been broadened to include universities, public institutions and organizations, professional organizations with public institution status, and labour and employer organizations, all of which are now authorized to provide training.
- Article 10 (2) has been repealed.
- Article 14 has been revised along with its title. The word “exam” was removed from the title and corresponding paragraphs were abolished. The revised article now reads:
“Completion of Training, Certification, and Fees
Article 14 – (1) Institutions and organizations that have signed protocols with the Ministry and provide training accordingly shall issue a “Certificate of Completion for Employer or Employer Representative Training on the Provision of Occupational Health and Safety Services” in accordance with Annex-3 for candidates who complete the training and shall notify the Directorate General.
(2) The fee covering training and certification shall not exceed one-tenth of the net minimum wage and shall be specified in the protocol signed with the Ministry, payable by the participants.”
- Article 17 has been repealed.
- Provisional Article 1 has been repealed.
- A new paragraph (2) has been added to Provisional Article 2:
“Validity of Existing Certificates
Provisional Article 2 – (2) Institutions and organizations that have signed protocols with the Ministry and provided training under this Regulation shall issue a “Certificate of Completion for Employer or Employer Representative Training on the Provision of Occupational Health and Safety Services” in accordance with Annex-3 to candidates who had previously received the “Right to Take Exam Certificate” in accordance with the repealed Annex-2, provided that they apply by 31/12/2025.
- Provisional Article 3 has been repealed.
- Annex-3 has been amended, and Annex-2 and Annex-4 have been repealed.
- The Regulation entered into force on the date of its publication.
Please refer to the regulation (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250305-11.htm
Circular on Preventing Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in Workplaces
- Published in the Official Gazette dated 06/03/2025, No. 32833, Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 titled “Prevention of Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in Workplaces” has been issued.
- You can access our detailed information note on this subject here.
Please refer to the circular (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250306-5.pdf
Communique on Amendments to the Communique on Workplace Hazard Classification Related to Occupational Health and Safety
- Published in the Official Gazette dated 13/03/2025, No. 32840, this Communiqué amends Annex-1 of the Communiqué on Workplace Hazard Classes Related to Occupational Health and Safety, which was originally published in the Official Gazette dated 26/12/2012, No. 28509.
- Following this amendment, the "Hazard Class" column of the table listing NACE codes and NACE definitions has been revised. It is of great importance for companies to check whether their hazard classes have changed by searching for their NACE codes in the updated list.
- The Communiqué entered into force on the date of its publication.
Please refer to the communique (in Turkish):
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2025/03/20250313-4.htm
United Kingdom (UK)
A New Regulation on Dismissal and Rehire Practices Has Come into Effect
As of 20 January 2025, a significant legal regulation concerning dismissal and rehire (“fire and rehire”) practices has come into force in the United Kingdom. Under this regulation, employers are now required to consult with trade unions or employee representatives during collective dismissal or rehire processes. Employers who fail to comply with this consultation requirement may face an increase of up to 25% in compensation awards determined by employment tribunals. This change aims to encourage employers to act more cautiously in dismissal and rehire processes and to foster more transparent communication with employees.
Please see: https://clarkslegal.com/insights/articles/fire-and-rehire-change-to-compensation-rules-from-20-january-2025/
United States (US)
Job Layoffs Increased by 245% in February
The consultancy firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which tracks job layoffs, has published its report for February. According to this report, US-based employers laid off 172,017 employees in February. This figure represents a 245% increase compared to the previous month and a 103% rise compared to the same period last year. The report highlights that the highest number of layoffs in February occurred in the public sector, with 17 federal government agencies announcing a total of 62,242 layoffs last month.
U.S. President Donald Trump Has Banned Remote Work for Public Sector Employees
According to information provided by the US Office of Personnel Management, there are 2.3 million public employees in the country. Approximately 1.1 million of these employees have the right to work remotely, and 228,000 of them actively exercise this right. US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order banning remote work for public employees. As a result of this decision, all public employees who had been working from home or in a hybrid model are now required to return to their offices.
Successful