Newsletter-21

342 NEWSLETTER 2016 above, this difference is not caused by any code or communiqué, but by business course and jurisprudences. Overtime Work Payments of White-Collar Employees Working conditions for all employees, without making white-blue collar distinctions, are determined by the Constitution, Labor Code, legislation regarding occupational health and safety and related codes and communiqués, collective and individual labor contracts, as well as workplace practices. Within this scope, employees working more than their contractual hours as determined by the collective and individual labor contracts are entitled to overtime payment, and employees may be required to work a maximum of 270 hours of overtime work within any given calendar year. As a common practice, and different than these regulations, em- ployers place a clause in the labor contracts of white collar employees stating “overtime work payments are included in their monthly salary,” and the employees’ salaries are determined in this manner. Through this clause, the employee gets only the contractual salary whether s/ he works overtime or not. However, pursuant to Court of Cassation decisions 2 , the application of these clauses remains limited because, in accordance withArticle 41 of the Labor Code, the hours of overtime work cannot be more than 270 hours per year. This provision aims to protect employees. The Court of Cassation accepts that all employees should benefit this provision without considering the white collar – blue collar distinction. Therefore, employers may add only 270 hours of overtime work to the contractual salary and an employee working overtime per year, and only 270 hours of this overtime work can be included in the yearly salary. If the employee proves that s/he has worked more than 270 hours per calendar year, then s/he can claim for compensation. The points to be taken into consideration here are the existence of a clear regulation in the labor contracts, and that the employees should 2 Decisions of 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 25.10.2001 numbered 2001/10041 E., 2001/16651 K and dated 27.02.2013, numbered 2010/42421 E., 2013/7129 K. can be shown as an example.