Attorney Naile Ülkü Levendoğlu, an expert in labor law, evaluated the most common legal risks for employers for PLASFED Magazine.
CRITICAL RISKS IN LABOR LAW
RESPONSIBILITIES AWAITING EMPLOYERS
Evaluating for PLASFED Magazine, labor law expert Attorney Naile Ülkü Levendoğlu drew attention to the legal risks most frequently encountered by employers in working life. Assessing many critical topics ranging from criminal liabilities arising after work accidents to occupational health and safety practices, and from document management to internal audit mechanisms, Levendoğlu emphasized that acting in compliance with legal procedures is of great importance. Stating that legal mistakes made by employers without realizing it can often lead to serious costs, Levendoğlu expressed that the way to reduce risks in labor law goes through effective audit processes.
Under the title "Critical Risks and Criminal Liabilities in Labor Law for Employers," we conducted a comprehensive interview with Attorney Naile Ülkü Levendoğlu, one of the prominent experts in the field of labor law. In the interview, we discussed the legal risks most frequently encountered by employers, criminal liabilities arising from work accidents, and critical points to pay attention to in the field of occupational health and safety.
Levendoğlu pointed out that legal mistakes made by employers without realizing them can cause serious costs to companies. She particularly emphasized the importance of occupational health and safety, document organization, termination processes, and internal audit mechanisms. Answering our questions for PLASFED Magazine readers, Levendoğlu stated that the way to reduce risks in labor law is through a strong corporate structure and a regular record-keeping system.
What are the most common risks employers face in terms of labor law in Turkey? In which areas are these risks most concentrated?
Actually, being an employer in Turkey is somewhat like trying to establish a balance between constantly changing rules and judicial decisions. The biggest risks are usually hidden in those small details that are neglected by saying "we'll handle it somehow"; for example, making employment contracts hastily or having unclear job descriptions can cause everything to turn against the employer in the future. Dismissal processes, in particular, are like a complete minefield; even if the employer is right, when they act without taking a defense statement or presenting documents in due form, it is very likely they will face reinstatement lawsuits and heavy compensations. In addition to this, incorrect calculation or incomplete payment of severance and notice indemnities are among the frequently encountered dispute subjects.
On the other hand, overtime and remuneration practices, as well as occupational health and safety obligations, are critical risk areas for employers. In fact, considering all of this, the essence of the matter is this: disputes become inevitable for an employer who does not establish a solid contractual infrastructure and document every step. In other words, establishing a transparent record-keeping system behind the scenes is actually your biggest shield against risks.
What are the legal mistakes employers make without realizing it? How do these mistakes cost the company?
The legal mistakes made unknowingly by employers that first come to my mind and that we encounter most frequently might be incorrectly or incompletely documenting employees' wages and fringe benefits, making underpayments to employees, failing to fulfill occupational health and safety obligations, and incompletely paying employees' wages and social rights.
As a result of these and similar mistakes, legal process costs along with compensations and additional payments come to the agenda as a result of lawsuits filed by employees. Sometimes, the employer may also be held liable for damages resulting from the violation of the employee's bodily integrity or personal rights. Additionally, administrative fines may come into the picture. All of these are, of course, serious financial obligations for employers, especially in large-scale workplaces.
Could you provide information about the criminal liabilities faced by employers and company executives following work accidents?
Although compensations always come to mind when work accidents are mentioned, there is actually a serious criminal dimension to the matter that can extend up to prison sentences. When an accident occurs, the process proceeds directly through the Turkish Penal Code and is generally evaluated within the scope of the crimes of causing death by negligence or causing injury by negligence. The most critical point here is whether the employer has fulfilled the obligation to take precautions imposed by Law No. 6331; if the accident happened because precautions were not taken, liability arises the moment that link between negligence and the result is established. In fact, if precautions were not taken by saying "nothing will happen anyway," penalties can become even more severe due to conscious negligence.
The most crucial part of the issue is that responsibility does not just stay with the employer on paper; executives and employer representatives who are actually responsible for that duty also enter the firing line in proportion to their own authority and fault. In other words, at the end of the day, the penalty is handed down not to the title, but to the actual person who did not take that precaution or perform the inspection. However, even if a transfer of authority has been made, the employer's supervisory obligation always remains valid.
What kind of system should be established to properly manage labor law processes in large-scale companies (structures with tens of thousands of employees)?
For the effective management of labor law processes in large-scale companies, first of all, the duties and responsibilities of the employer, employer representatives, and other personnel should be clearly defined. In addition, internal audit mechanisms and systems regarding risk management must be established. Along with this, regular reporting should be conducted. Furthermore, competent experts should be assigned, especially and primarily in the field of occupational health and safety.
In summary, alongside a comprehensive employer organization, the occupational health and safety structure as well as internal control and audit mechanisms are of importance. Of course, in the event of a dispute, all these systems need to be operated together and in coordination to manage it. All of these become meaningful when evaluated within a whole and together.
What are the main causes of legal disputes experienced in dismissal processes? What do you recommend for conducting these processes fairly and transparently for both the employer and the employee?
The real reason for disputes in dismissal processes is that the termination process is managed with instantaneous decisions and hearsay information instead of a legal framework. Abstract justifications such as poor performance are often used, but when there are no written warnings, concrete data, or defense records to back this up, the case gets tangled in court. Procedural errors, incorrectly calculated indemnities, or unrecorded overtime directly put the employer, who bears the burden of proof, in the wrong.
The way to make this process fair and transparent for both parties is through a document-oriented culture; meaning everything from performance reviews to payrolls must be kept regularly, the defense mechanism must be operated honestly, and mediation must be seen not just as a procedural hurdle, but as a real opportunity for reconciliation. In short, a process planned and recorded from start to finish both protects the employer from the burden of compensation and eliminates uncertainty by ensuring the employee clearly sees their rights.
What are the main reasons that lead to results against employers in mediation and litigation processes?
Actually, the biggest reason why the scale tips against the employer in mediation and litigation processes is that labor law protects the employee by its very nature, and the burden of proof lies on the employer. Employers often view mediation merely as a formal hurdle to be overcome and miss a huge opportunity by participating in the process with unauthorized representatives. Moreover, the lack of documentation during the trial phase always causes the process to work against the employer.
The lack of signed payrolls, properly kept timesheets, or leave forms leaves the employer completely defenseless; especially if payments were made in hand instead of through a bank or if the reason for termination is not supported by concrete evidence, the court directly looks at witness statements, which generally means a disadvantage for the employer. When you add improperly taken defenses, incorrect termination codes, or missed legal deadlines to this, finding yourself in the wrong even when you are right becomes inevitable. In short, not taking the mediation table seriously and not proceeding with written evidence at every step are the primary mistakes that lead to these processes ending costly for the employer.
What kind of new obligations have recent regulations in the field of labor law brought for employers?
In recent years, there has been an increase, particularly for employers, in occupational health and safety measures. Even if not stipulated in the legislation, employers are obliged to take occupational health and safety measures required by scientific and technological developments. In addition, regulations have been made regarding the obligation to employ disabled and formerly convicted individuals for employers who employ a certain number of workers. Along with this, important new obligations have been brought in areas such as the fulfillment of social security obligations, the notification obligation of employers who employ foreigners, making insured notifications on time, and compliance with audits. We see that administrative fines and legal sanctions are applied against employers in case these obligations are not fulfilled.
What are the three fundamental steps an employer who wants to minimize labor law risks must implement?
If we look at this question within the framework of legislation and Court of Cassation decisions, firstly, the employer must conduct a risk assessment to prevent risks. Secondly, they must determine and implement appropriate measures against the identified risks. In addition to this, as a final point, if they inform and train employees and give appropriate instructions in terms of occupational health, we can say that the employer will be close to minimizing risks in terms of labor law.
Finally, what would be your most critical advice to employers and senior executives regarding labor law?
It is critically important for employers and senior executives to act in accordance with labor law legislation, regulate working conditions in compliance with the Labor Law, comply with legal procedures when making changes to working conditions, take occupational health and safety measures completely, and ensure compliance with audits. Otherwise, both legal responsibilities may arise, and employers and executives may face serious sanctions.
Box
In a work accident, is only the company held responsible, or do board members and senior executives also fall under individual responsibility?
Actually, one of the biggest misconceptions is the thought that when a work accident happens, the responsibility will remain solely with the corporate entity of the company; however, due to the principle of personality of penalties in criminal law, sanctions such as prison sentences can only be directed at real persons, namely executives. Of course, this does not mean "I am a board member, therefore I am definitely responsible"; responsibility is determined not by the title, but by looking at who holds which authority and what they actually failed to do.
Companies generally delegate occupational safety responsibility to specific managers or representatives, but it is a condition that this delegation does not remain on paper; the assigned person must truly be competent and be provided with the necessary budget and authority.
If the accident stems from a general organizational breakdown of the company or the failure of senior management to perform necessary supervision, responsibility can loop back and extend all the way up to the highest-level executives. In other words, at the end of the day, the judiciary personalizes the fault by seeking answers to the questions: "Who had the authority to take this precaution, did they have the means, and why didn't they take it?"
This content has been translated using artificial intelligence technology.
"