Employment Law Developments in Türkiye: 2025 Highlights and a Look Ahead to 2026

 

2025 brought significant developments in Türkiye’s employment laws, driven by regulatory changes and influential court decisions affecting employment practices across sectors.

Key developments include (i) digitalisation of notification procedures made under the Labour Code No. 4857 (“Labour Code”) through use of Registered Electronic Mail (“KEP”) providing increased flexibility in the use of weekly rest days in the tourism sector, (ii) amendments to the rules governing the applicable law in employment agreements with a foreign element, and (iii) the introduction of employer liability for deportation-related costs of unauthorised foreign workers. In parallel, an updated Presidential Circular reinforced employers’ obligations to prevent workplace mobbing and expanded institutional oversight mechanisms. On the judicial front, the Constitutional Court and the Court of Appeals issued several landmark decisions, addressing issues such as the exclusion of white-collar employees from collective bargaining agreements, procedural barriers in subcontractor-related mediation, the competent courts for post-termination non-compete disputes, and the validity of voluntary mediation agreements where the mediation was initiated before a dispute arises.

Looking ahead to 2026, minimum wage, employment-related administrative fines and the statutory severance payment ceiling were re-determined by the relevant public bodies.

UPDATES ON MONETARY THRESHOLDS

Adjustments to minimum wage, administrative fines and severance payment have been announced as follows.

• Minimum monthly wage

  : The Ministry of Labour and Social Security of Türkiye has announced the gross minimum monthly wage for 2026 as TL 33,030.00 (approximately EUR 660), which corresponds to net TL 28,075.50 (approximately EUR 560).

• Administrative fines under employment legislation

  : The administrative fines to be imposed in 2026 under the provisions of the Labour Code and Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 have been increased with a 25.49% revaluation rate in line with 2025 inflation.

• Statutory severance payment

  : The ceiling applicable to severance payment, which is a statutory termination compensation to be paid to employees meeting the eligibility criteria, has been increased to gross TL 64,948.77 (approximately EUR 1,295).

LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

Labour Code amended to permit employee notifications via KEP.

An amendment to the Labour Code was published and entered into force on 24 July 2025, allowing employers to use KEP alongside traditional paper-based communications. KEP is a form of electronic mail granted by authorised electronic mail service providers that could be relied on as legal proof of transmission, delivery, and/or receipt in notifications sent to employees concerning matters of Labour Code. Use of KEP requires prior written consent of the employee and all costs associated with the implementation and use of the KEP system needs to be covered by the employer. Importantly, notifications that result in the termination of employment agreements must still be made in writing and cannot be delivered via KEP.

Labour Code amended to allow for deferred weekly rest days for employees working at licensed tourism facilities.

An amendment to Article 46 of the Labour Code was published and entered into force on 14 July 2025, introducing significant flexibility for employers in the tourism sector regarding weekly rest days. Previously, employees were entitled to at least 24 consecutive hours of rest within a seven-day period, if they had worked on the working days determined in accordance with Article 63 of the Labour Code prior to the rest day. Under the new regulation, employees working in accommodation facilities holding a tourism operating licence issued by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism may now use their weekly rest period within four days following the day it is earned, upon their written request or consent. Employees retain the right to withdraw their consent by providing 30 days’ written notice. Under this arrangement when employees work on their originally scheduled rest day, only hours exceeding the legally permitted daily working time will be considered overtime.

Further details regarding this legal development can be found in the following link.

Conflict of laws rules governing employment agreements amended following Constitutional Court annulment.

Following the Constitutional Court’s decision dated 5 November 2024 and numbered 2024/187, annulling the provision which permitted parties to choose applicable law in employment agreements with a foreign element, the legislature amended the relevant conflict-of-laws rules by in the 1^st Repeated Official Gazette dated 4 June 2025 and numbered 32920. The amendment reinstates the rule that employment agreements may be governed by the law chosen by the parties, subject to the minimum protection afforded to the employee under the mandatory provisions of law that the employee usually conducts his/her work. However, in such case, the court may still decide another law to be the governing law of the contract, due to the fact the employment is closely connected to the determined law by the court, while preserving the applicable mandatory provisions.

Employers made liable for deportation-related costs of unauthorised foreign employees.

A new regulation published on 23 July 2025 and entered into force on 23 January 2026, provides that employers who employ foreign nationals without valid work permits will be liable for deportation-related costs incurred during the administrative detention period of up to three months for those people and their families. Covered costs include accommodation, repatriation and necessary medical expenses, where applicable, with accommodation costs and removal centre daily rates to be set annually by the Presidency of Migration Management. Employers will be required to pay these amounts within one month after being notified in writing. Unpaid amounts will be collected pursuant to public debt collection procedures.

Presidential circular on the prevention of workplace mobbing updated to strengthen employer obligations.

A new Presidential Circular on the Prevention of Mobbing at Workplaces was published and entered into force on 6 March 2025, replacing the previous 2011 circular (“Circular”). The updated Circular reinforces employers’ and executives’ obligations to prevent psychological harassment, restructure the Psychological Harassment Prevention Board with expanded policy, training, awareness and guidance functions, and requires employers to assess risks, adopt preventive measures, provide training, and inform employees of reporting mechanisms while ensuring confidentiality during investigations. The Circular also expands employee complaint channels beyond ALO 170 to additional public authorities, including the Presidency’s Communication Centre, the Petition Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Human Rights and Equality Institution, and the Ombudsman Institution of Türkiye.

Further details regarding this legal development can be found in the following link.

SIGNIFICANT COURT RULINGS

Constitutional Court rules that white-collar status of an employee cannot justify exclusion from CBA coverage.

In a decision dated 20 March 2025 and published in the Official Gazette on 22 September 2025, the Constitutional Court held that excluding an employee from the scope of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA“) solely on the grounds of being a white-collar employee constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to unionisation.

The Constitutional Court emphasised that everyone has the right to conclude and benefit from a CBA, and that pursuant to Article 39 of the Law on Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements No. 6356, only “employer’s representatives” and “those who participate in collective bargaining negotiations on behalf of the employer” may be excluded from this coverage. The Court noted that there is no normative basis for distinguishing between white-collar and blue-collar employees in determining eligibility to benefit from a CBA. Referring to Court of Appeals case law, the Constitutional Court stated that factors such as the nature of duties, corresponding responsibilities, remuneration, and whether the employee holds a managerial position should be carefully examined when assessing whether an employee may benefit from a CBA. However, applying these criteria as restrictive measures beyond those expressly provided by law would constitute a violation of the right to unionisation.

Further details regarding this legal development can be found in the following link.

Constitutional Court annuls joint mediation participation requirement in subcontractor-related re-instatement disputes.

Paragraph 15 of Article 3 of the Labour Courts Law No. 7036 stipulates that, in the presence of a subcontracting relationship, both the principal employer and the subcontractor are required to jointly participate in mediation proceedings initiated by the subcontracted employee, and that any settlement could be concluded only if their consents were aligned. However, by its decision dated 3 June 2025, published in the Official Gazette on 17 October 2025, the Constitutional Court annulled this provision as unconstitutional.

The Constitutional Court held that the rule imposed a disproportionate burden on employees, who may not be aware of subcontractor arrangements and are not legally entitled to access such information prior to initiating mediation. It was further noted by the Constitutional Court that failure to identify the correct parties at the mediation stage could result in dismissal of the case on procedural grounds, thereby unduly restricting employees’ right of access to justice. Emphasising the principle of proportionality, the Court found that the provision failed to strike a fair balance between the public interest in preventing procedural deficiencies and the protection of employees’ fundamental right to a fair trial. The Constitutional Court also underlined that existing procedural mechanisms already allow for the correction of the party designation errors during litigation.

Accordingly, the provision was annulled under Articles 13 and 36 of the Constitution, removing a significant procedural obstacle for employees seeking reinstatement in cases involving subcontractor relationships.

Court of Appeal Unification Council finally resolves on which court has jurisdiction over post-termination non-compete disputes.

In its decision dated 13 June 2025, the Court of Appeals Grand General Council for the Unification of Precedents (“Council“) resolved a long-standing divergence on the competent court for claims arising from alleged breaches of post-termination non-compete obligations. Accordingly, the Council stated that the commercial courts of first instance (rather than employment courts) have jurisdiction over such disputes.

The Council emphasised that non-compete obligations are not an extension of the employee’s duty of loyalty, rather they constitute an independent obligation that must be agreed separately and in writing, with effects arising after the employment relationship has ended. The Council further noted issues commonly assessed in such disputes, such as customer base, trade secrets, and whether information acquired by the employee qualifies as a trade secret, are commercial in nature and closely linked to market conditions, and should therefore be examined by commercial courts.

Further details regarding this legal development can be found in the following link.

Court of Appeals renders voluntary mediation settlement invalid, where mediation was initiated before the dispute.

In a decision dated 24 April 2025, the Court of Appeals held that a settlement agreement reached through voluntary mediation initiated by an employer before any dispute had arisen between the parties to be invalid. The Court of Appeals emphasised that, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Article 18 of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes, in order to have a valid mediation agreement initially a dispute needs to arise between the parties.

Further details regarding this legal development can be found in the following link.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, these developments underscore the importance of staying current with regulatory and judicial trends. Employers should continue to track legislative developments and case-law trends to maintain compliance and mitigate legal risks.

Related Content
For an overview of last year’s key employment law developments, you may also wish to read our previous publication:

Employment Law Developments in Türkiye: A Look Back at 2024 and Ahead to 2025