Change of Employee’s Workplace and Limits of the Employer’s Right of Management

1. Change of Employee’s Workplace

The fundamental purpose of labour law is to protect employees due to the imbalance of power between the parties to an employment contract and to prevent working conditions from being changed arbitrarily by the employer. In this regard, Labour Law No. 4857 contains various provisions aimed not only at ensuring the continuity of the employment relationship but also at protecting the employee’s existing working conditions.

Within this framework, Article 22 of Labour Law No. 4857 subjects the employer’s ability to make substantial changes to working conditions to the detriment of the employee to certain conditions. Pursuant to this provision, where the employer wishes to make a substantial change to working conditions arising from the employment contract, personnel regulations and similar rules forming an annex to the employment contract, or established workplace practices, the employer is required to notify the employee of such change in writing. The employee must accept the notified change in writing within six working days. Changes made without complying with this procedure, or changes that are not accepted by the employee in writing within the prescribed period, shall not be binding on the employee.

On the other hand, the employee’s refusal to accept the proposed change does not mean that the employer may immediately terminate the employment contract under all circumstances. In such a case, in order for the employer to resort to termination, the employer must explain in writing that the proposed change is based on a valid reason as stipulated under Article 18 of Labour Law No. 4857 and must comply with the statutory notice period.

A change in the employee’s workplace is also one of the principal matters that may constitute a substantial change. In practice, a significant portion of Court of Cassation decisions concerning substantial changes relates to whether a change of workplace constitutes a substantial change. A substantial change is generally regarded as a change that worsens the employee’s position and adversely affects their working life.

In determining whether a change is substantial, the particular circumstances of each individual case must be examined separately. For example, Court of Cassation decisions indicate that a workplace change within the same province and within a reasonable distance may not necessarily constitute a substantial change. However, transferring an employee to a significantly distant location within the same province or to another province may constitute a substantial change.

“The claimant employee had worked at the workplace for many years and, although residing in the Eyüp district of Istanbul, had been commuting to the workplace operating in Ümraniye. Following the employer’s relocation of the workplace to Çekmeköy, the working conditions were changed. The employee’s newly assigned workplace was 15 km farther away than the previous workplace, and even though the employer provided a shuttle service, considering Istanbul’s traffic conditions and the total distance and time required to commute to the new workplace, the change was to the employee’s detriment. Therefore, the claimant employee terminated the employment contract pursuant to Article 24/2-f of Labour Law No. 4857 and, based on such termination for just cause, should be deemed entitled to severance pay. For the reasons explained above, the decision rendered in writing was erroneous and required reversal.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/647, K. 2019/5645, D. 13.03.2019)

Accordingly, in determining whether a workplace change is substantial, the specific circumstances of each case, including commuting distance, transportation conditions and working arrangements, must be examined.

In addition, where a change of workplace is considered a substantial change, the following requirements must be fulfilled:

• The proposed change must be notified to the employee in writing: Pursuant to Article 22 of the Labour Law, a substantial change must be communicated to the employee in writing. A change communicated solely verbally to the employee is not legally valid.
• The employee must provide written acceptance within six working days: Following the employer’s written notification, the employee must submit their written acceptance within six working days. An important point in this regard is that the employee’s silence or failure to respond to the substantial change does not constitute acceptance. On the contrary, the employee’s silence is deemed to constitute rejection of the change, and the relevant change will not be binding on the employee.

The Court of Cassation requires the employee’s explicit written consent in this regard and does not consider even an employee’s continued work at the new workplace for eight months, without providing written acceptance, as implied consent:

“…In the present dispute, while the claimant employee was working at the defendant bank’s head office, the employee was first assigned to the Levent branch and, approximately three months later, was reassigned to work at the Avcılar branch. According to the case file and, in particular, the statements of witnesses presented by both parties, although shuttle transportation had been provided for commuting to and from the head office, no shuttle service was provided at the branch workplaces, nor was any transportation allowance paid. Accordingly, it is understood that the working conditions were changed to the detriment of the claimant. The fact that the employee continued working for approximately eight months following the change should not be considered as implied acceptance of such change. It should therefore be concluded that the employee terminated the employment contract for just cause, and severance pay should be awarded…” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2016/18207, K. 2020/6369, D. 24.06.2020)

The employee’s rejection of a proposed change may constitute a reason for termination from the employer’s perspective. In the ordinary course of events, a workplace may be relocated from one province to another. For example, where a workplace is relocated from Istanbul to İzmir, the employee’s refusal to accept such relocation may constitute a ground for termination. However, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation has established certain criteria in this regard. In order for the employer to terminate the employment contract of an employee who does not accept the proposed change, there must first be valid reasons within the meaning of Article 18 of the Labour Law. Another criterion required by the Court of Cassation is expressed in its decision as follows:

“…, at the second stage, it must be examined whether the contractual change actually proposed complies with the law and the collective bargaining agreement; whether it complies with the principle of proportionality; and whether it may reasonably be expected from the employee to accept such proposal; in other words, whether the employee is obliged to accept the proposed change. Therefore, at the second stage of the review concerning the validity of termination due to a proposed change, the proposed change itself must be reviewed. In this context, the review must essentially be conducted on the basis of proportionality. Such review must be carried out in light of the specific circumstances of the case. Accordingly, termination due to a proposed change may only be considered as an ultima ratio where the change in working conditions is appropriate, necessary as a less burdensome measure, and proportionate to the objective pursued. There must be no other organisational, technical or economic measure available that would make it possible to achieve the same objective without changing the working conditions or by proposing less burdensome working conditions. Furthermore, where possible, the employer must make a less radical proposal concerning the amendment of the contract. If the proposed change violates the principle of equal treatment under labour law, the employee is not required to tolerate such proposal and the termination due to the proposed change shall be deemed invalid.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, E. 2023/3247, K. 2023/3581, D. 13.03.2023)

Accordingly, taking into account the principles of proportionality and termination as a last resort, the employer may terminate the employment contract on valid grounds where the employee rejects the proposed workplace change or remains silent in response to the proposal.

Finally, it should be noted that changes made to working conditions cannot have retroactive effect; they may only produce legal consequences for the period following their duly accepted implementation.

2. Limits of the Employer’s Right of Management

An employment contract establishes the general framework of the employment relationship between the parties. However, it is not consistent with the ordinary course of events to determine every aspect of the work in complete detail from beginning to end within an employment contract. At this point, the employer’s right of management may be defined as the authority to issue unilateral instructions in order to specify the employee’s obligation to perform work, establish the working order and organise workplace operations.

Labour Law No. 4857 does not contain an explicit provision directly entitled “right of management”. However, the employer’s right of management is regulated under Article 399 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. This provision states that “The employer may make general arrangements concerning the performance of work and the conduct of employees at the workplace and may give them specific instructions. Employees are required to comply with such arrangements and instructions to the extent required by the principles of good faith.”

Instructions that may be issued by the employer within the scope of the right of management may relate to the manner in which the work is performed, the place and time of performance, or the rules governing employees’ conduct at the workplace. However, this authority does not grant the employer an unlimited or arbitrary discretion. Pursuant to the hierarchy of norms under labour law, such instructions must not conflict with mandatory statutory provisions, collective bargaining agreements, individual employment contracts or established workplace practices. The employer may not, by relying on the right of management, unilaterally alter working conditions expressly agreed upon in the employment contract to the detriment of the employee. The authority to issue instructions may only be exercised where there is a gap in these sources or where the relevant conditions require further specification.

The employee’s obligation to comply with such instructions is likewise not absolute. The principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights set out under Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code constitute the principal mechanisms for reviewing the exercise of the employer’s right of management. Employees have the right to object to and refrain from complying with instructions that infringe their personal rights, endanger occupational health and safety, are manifestly unlawful, or constitute a substantial change in working conditions within the meaning of Article 22 of Labour Law No. 4857. Accordingly, an employee’s refusal to comply with an instruction that exceeds the lawful or contractual limits of the employer’s authority does not constitute just or valid grounds for termination by the employer.

References

1. Ekmekçi, Ömer / Yiğit, Esra, Bireysel İş Hukuku [Individual Labour Law], Updated 4th Edition, On İki Levha Publishing, Istanbul.
2. DergiPark, “Çalışma Koşullarında Esaslı Değişiklik” [Substantial Changes in Working Conditions], https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/726856 , (Date Accessed: 21.09.2026).
3. Çalışma ve Toplum, “Çalışma Koşullarında Esaslı Değişiklik” [Substantial Changes in Working Conditions], https://yargi.calismatoplum.org/calisma-kosullarinda-esasli-degisiklik/ , (Date Accessed: 21.09.2026).