The Turkish Constitutional Court rules for violation of unionisation right where out-of-scope employees in a collective bargaining agreement are determined solely based on their classification as white-collar employees

The Turkish Constitutional Court’s (“Constitutional Court”) decision dated 20 March 2025, published in the Official Gazette dated 22 September 2025 and numbered 33025, contains important assessments regarding determination of out-of-scope employees in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”).

The applicant, who worked as a chief accountant, was a member of Türkiye Maden-İş Union, being the authorised union at the workplace that signed two CBAs with three-year intervals. Asserting that she has been excluded from the scope of the CBA solely on the grounds for being a white-collar employee, the applicant filed a lawsuit claiming employment-related receivables including wage increases granted to unionized employees, which were claimed to have long been applied to out-of-scope employees, but were discontinued as of 2007.

The first-instance court dismissed the case on the grounds that the applicant, being an out-of-scope employee, could not benefit from the wage increases of the CBA, and this situation did not constitute a breach of the employer’s duty of equal treatment. Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Samsun Regional Court of Appeal overturned the decision on the grounds that if it was determined that another out-of-scope employee had benefited from the wage increases without an objective justification, the claim should be upheld. However, upon retrial, the court of first instance found that none of the out-of-scope employees had received such increase and again dismissed the case. The regional court upheld this ruling, following which the applicant filed an individual application with the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court examined whether the situation constituted a violation of the constitutional right to unionization. Referring to national and international legal regulations and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court underlined that everyone has the right to conclude and benefit from a CBA, and that pursuant to Article 39 of the Law No. 6356 on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, only “employer’s representatives” and “those who participate in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the employer” are excluded from this right.

In its assessment, the Constitutional Court also emphasized that the Turkish Court of Appeals had previously found no normative basis for a distinction between white-collar and blue-collar employees in determining eligibility to benefit from a CBA. Referring to a 2024 decision of the Court of Appeals, the Constitutional Court highlighted that, in assessing whether an employee may benefit from a CBA, factors such as the nature of the employee’s duties, corresponding responsibilities, remuneration, and whether the employee holds a managerial position within the organisational structure should be carefully examined. The Constitutional Court further stated that applying these criteria as restrictive measures, beyond those expressly provided by law – namely, being an “employer’s representative” or “participating in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the employer” – would constitute a violation of the right to unionization.

Consequently, the Constitutional Court held that excluding the applicant from the scope of the CBA solely on the grounds of being a white-collar employee constituted a violation of the right to unionization and awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damages.

This decision of the Constitutional Court stands out as an important precedent that will prompt re-evaluation of the definitions of “out-of-scope employees” both in current and future CBAs.