Newsletter-21

343 LABOR LAW not be able to determine their working hours by themselves 3 . As a result, white collar employees who do not have such a clear clause in their labor contracts shall be entitled to payment for every hour of their overtime work. Furthermore, the Court of Cassation decided that employees who are not taking instructions from managers or/and any other person, cannot demand overtime work payment because they determine their working hours by themselves in order to fulfill their duties 4 . Within this scope, a senior manager, who commands high salary, and determines his/her own working hours and conditions, works in excess of 270 overtime hours per year, he/she is not entitled to overtime work payment. Equity Reduction The Court of Cassation acknowledges that working regularly for a long periods and overtime hours is against the normal course of life and human nature, and one cannot work for years without being ill or having a day off for a marriage, deaths, births, or any other special needs. Working continuously, without considering the production ac- tivities in the workplace, and the nature of the work undertaken by the employee, are not to be admissible, as well 5 . In this regard, although there are no legal provisions governing the reduction from overtime work payment, the Court of Cassation finds it appropriate to make an equity reduction with a rate of 1/3 and 1/4 beyond overtime work payment calculated in this case. Pursuant to Turkish law, the party who claims the overtime work is obliged to prove his/her claim, and may use any kinds of evidence, such as office records, internal correspondences, witnesses, etc 6 . In 3 Decisions of 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 01.04.2008 numbered 2007/33244 E., 2008/7135 K. and dated 30.01.2006, numbered 2005/20001 E., 2006/1763 K. can be shown as an example. 4 Decision of 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 27.02.2013 numbered 2010/42421E., 2013/7129 K can be shown as an example. 5 Decision of General Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 04.02.2009 numbered 2009/9-2 E., 2009/48 K. and decision of 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 27.01.2011 numbered 2009/1652 E., 2011/1044 K can be shown as an example. 6 Decision of 9th Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 27.01.2011 numbered 2009/1652 E., 2011/1044 K. can be shown as an example.