The phenomenon of substantial changes in working conditions has found its application in Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857. This article covers not only changes made in the employment contract but also changes in working conditions resulting from personnel regulations, workplace practices, and similar sources.
WHAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE? The concept of substantial change refers to modifications that worsen the working conditions of the employee and have adverse effects. However, in some cases, these changes can be balanced with equivalent benefits. In such situations, it is considered that no substantial change has occurred. (For example, replacing the meal service at the workplace with meal allowance or replacing the company transportation service with transportation reimbursement.)
The term substantial change requires an examination based on the specific circumstances and cannot be characterized by listing them one by one. However, it is necessary to provide examples of substantial changes that occur in the working conditions of the employee, such as:
- WAGE CHANGES Changes that negatively affect the employee’s wages, including reductions, as well as requiring the employee to cover expenses previously provided by the employer, such as meals and transportation, without any explicit wage reduction, are considered as a decrease in the employee’s remuneration. These aspects constitute substantial changes.
According to the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, File No. 2009/17729, Decision No. 2009/14144, and the decision dated May 25, 2009, “Reducing the employee’s wages or eliminating or reducing the additional social benefits related to wages constitutes a substantial change in working conditions.”
- IMPOSING UNPAID LEAVE: Forcing the employee to take unpaid leave without their request or consent is also considered a substantial change.
According to the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, File No. 2009/32059, Decision No. 2009/31083, and the decision dated November 9, 2009, “In the specific dispute, it is evident that the implementation of unpaid leave, which constitutes a substantial change in working conditions, was not communicated to the employee in writing without a valid reason.”
The phenomenon of substantial changes in working conditions has found its application in Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857. This article covers not only changes made in the employment contract but also changes in working conditions resulting from personnel regulations, workplace practices, and similar sources.
WHAT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE? The term substantial change refers to modifications that worsen the working conditions of the employee and have adverse effects. However, in some cases, these changes can be balanced with equivalent benefits.
CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF THE JOB: A significant change is considered when the employee is assigned to a position of lower qualification compared to the designated job description at the time of employment.
If we need to provide some examples mentioned in the Supreme Court decisions:
Assigning the employee to garbage collection while working as a driver, According to the Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber Decision 2012/11375 Esas, 2014/16738 Karar, and the decision dated 26.5.2014, “Assigning the plaintiff to work in garbage collection without his consent after being removed from the position of a driver is considered a substantial change in working conditions according to Article 22 of Law No. 4857, which grants the employee the right to terminate the employment contract without notice for just cause.”
Assigning a tire repairman to street cleaning, According to the Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber Decision 2015/24749 Esas, 2017/28845 Karar, and the decision dated 18.12.2017, “In the present case, the plaintiff is a qualified employee who has been working as a tire repairman for years. It is understood that he was assigned as an unskilled worker for street cleaning with a handcart and broom after undergoing meniscus surgery. The plaintiff did not have a written request from the employer. It is understood from the witness statements that he may have verbally requested a lighter job due to his condition, but it should be the most suitable job considering the nature of the work. It is understood that he was assigned as a cleaning worker without his consent by the employer, and as a result, he terminated the employment contract by leaving the workplace. The working conditions were substantially changed by the employer. In this case, it should be accepted that the employment contract was terminated by the employee for just cause according to Article 24/II-f of Law No. 4857. Although the court should have ruled for severance pay, rejecting it with written justification is incorrect and requires reversal.”
Assigning a daytime worker to a night shift, According to the Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber Decision 2015/32303 Esas, 2018/11748 Karar, and the decision dated 14.5.2018, “In this case, it is necessary to accept that the plaintiff, who has been working on the day shift for 6 years, terminated the employment contract with just cause due to being unilaterally assigned to the night shift by the employer. While the severance pay should have been awarded by recognizing this, it is a ground for reversal to decide on the rejection of severance pay due to an incorrect evaluation.”
CHANGE OF WORKPLACE: Once the place where the employee will work is determined by the employment contract, as a general rule, changes cannot be made regarding the workplace. According to the Supreme Court decisions, moving the workplace to a location outside the provincial boundaries or a location within the provincial boundaries but at an unreasonable distance is considered a substantial change.
According to the Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber Decision 2011/39644 Esas, 2013/8037 Karar, and the decision dated 07.03.2013, “In this case, it is understood that for the plaintiff to go to the new workplace approximately 20-25 km away from the workplace located in Gaziemir, he would need to take at least 2-3 means of public transportation, and the time spent on public transportation would be counted as working time. Since the defendant did not accept this, it is clear that the plaintiff would have to allocate time from his own time or rest time for work, and it is certain that he would spend time for going.