More power, less protection: job security exclusions for employer representatives

The Turkish Labour Code establishes a comprehensive job security framework that shields employees from unjustified dismissal. It does, however, expressly exclude employer representatives and their assistants meeting certain criteria. Individuals falling within this exclusion cannot invoke the protections available under the job security regime, including the requirement that the employer demonstrate a valid reason for termination, the right to seek reinstatement, and the entitlement to claim compensation for unjustified dismissal.

Judicial assessment of employer representative status

Turkish courts assess whether an individual qualifies as an employer representative or an assistant to an employer representative by reference to two principal criteria, namely whether the individual manages the establishment as a whole, or whether the individual manages a workplace forming part of a broader establishment, provided that the individual also holds the authority to hire and dismiss employees, as both conditions must be satisfied concurrently. In applying either criterion, courts look beyond formal titles such as “general manager” and examine the actual decision-making power exercised, the individual’s position within the organizational hierarchy, representation and binding authority on behalf of the entity, the degree of operational autonomy, and the scope of managerial functions performed.

Impact of signatory restrictions and changes in authority

A recurring issue in practice is whether joint or limited signatory authority affects this classification. Where the individual manages the establishment as a whole, courts have consistently held that a co-signature requirement does not negate employer representative status. At the workplace level, however, courts treat an individual as falling outside the employer representative classification where the individual lacks the independent authority to hire and dismiss employees, which remains a prerequisite regardless of the form of signatory power, and where signatory authority is further restricted in scope, subject matter, or amount, or requires a co-signature. The mere possession of signatory authority is insufficient; the controlling consideration is whether the individual, in practice, wields authority over the relevant unit that is functionally equivalent to that of the employer.

As a general rule, the individual must hold employer representative authority at the time of termination for the exclusion to apply. Where such authority is reduced or suspended shortly before termination, however, courts do not automatically conclude that the exclusion has ceased to apply. A temporary or procedural restriction may leave the individual’s substantive role intact and the critical inquiry in such cases is whether the change reflects a genuine restructuring of the individual’s role or merely a temporary measure that does not alter the fundamental nature of the employment relationship. Courts consider the timing and duration of the restriction, whether the individual continued to exercise de facto authority, and whether the restriction constituted a genuine compliance measure or a step intended to alter the employee’s legal standing prior to termination.

Conclusion

Determining whether an individual falls within the scope of the job security exclusion is far from straightforward, as Turkish courts conduct a case-by-case analysis that takes into account the specific particularities of each case, rendering it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion in advance. Accordingly, any such assessment requires a careful, case-specific evaluation, and the process tied to that assessment must be handled with particular diligence, as the legal consequences and outcomes differ materially depending on whether the exclusion applies.

Originally published in LIR Türkiye