Recent Development
The Constitutional Court’s decision, dated 20 March 2025 and numbered 2022/18821 (“Decision”), was published in the Official Gazette, dated 22 September 2025 and numbered 33025. You can read the Decision here. The Decision examines the classification of employees as white-collar or out-of-scope employees and their consequent exclusion from collective bargaining agreements (CBAs).
Subject matter of the Decision
In the incident forming the subject matter of the Decision, an employee (“Applicant”), who was working as an accounting chief at a company, was classified by the employer as a “white-collar” employee and therefore out of the CBA’s scope, despite being a member of a labor union, and she was consequently denied the benefits of the CBA.
The Applicant stated that although she was considered out-of-scope personnel, the wage increases granted to unionized employees under the CBA were initially also applied to out-of-scope personnel, but this practice was discontinued in 2007.
Following this, the Applicant filed a lawsuit against the employer, seeking payment of receivables arising from the CBA and other employment-related claims. However, the first instance court dismissed the case on the grounds that out-of-scope personnel cannot benefit from the provisions of the CBA. Although this decision was overturned upon review of appeal, the case was dismissed again in the retrial on the grounds that other out-of-scope employees were not granted the increases under the CBA, and this decision was final. The Applicant then brought the matter before the Constitutional Court through an individual application, alleging violations of the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality, and the right to unionize.
The Constitutional Court’s assessment
The Constitutional Court evaluated the Applicant’s allegations within the scope of the right to form and join labor unions guaranteed under Article 51 of the Constitution, and the right to conclude collective agreements regulated under Article 53 of the Constitution. It emphasized that all employees have the right to conclude a CBA, and that the scope of this right includes not only the conclusion of the agreement but also the benefits arising from the rights that the CBA grants.
The Decision stated that the only valid justification for preventing an employee from benefiting from a CBA is, as stipulated in the Law No. 6356 on Trade Unions and Collective Bargaining Agreements, the employee’s status as an employer’s representative or their participation in CBA negotiations on behalf of the employer. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court underlined that the distinction between white-collar and blue-collar employees, which is referred to in the Court of Cassation’s settled case law, lacks any legal basis, and that such broad interpretations would deprive employees of their constitutional rights.
As a result, the Constitutional Court held that the right to unionize guaranteed under Article 51 of the Constitution had been violated.
Conclusion
The Constitutional Court, contrary to the Court of Cassation’s settled case law, ruled that employers cannot deprive employees of the rights arising from a CBA solely based on classifications such as white-collar employees or out-of-scope employees, and that such a practice cannot be accepted. Employers should carefully assess the effects of this Decision.
