Can Senior Executives Claim Overtime Wages According to Supreme Court Rulings?

The provisions of the Labor Law No. 4857 regarding working hours and overtime apply to senior executives acting as employer representatives. It is a fact that senior executives have broad discretion in determining their working hours, scheduling vacations, arriving late or leaving early from work, or even not coming to work.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2015/13462 E., 2017/15484 K., 11.10.2017 T.

In this case, the Supreme Court highlighted that: “…the plaintiff works as a medical representative, visiting pharmacies and doctors in his area of responsibility with the vehicle provided by the workplace. Since he is alone during these visits, it is not possible for the witnesses he listened to know the working schedule of the plaintiff. The statements of the witnesses relate to their own work, not the plaintiff's. On the other hand, due to the nature of the job, it must be accepted that medical representatives working as described schedule their own visits to the places to be visited, in other words, they determine their own working hours and manner. Therefore, it was erroneous to accept the plaintiff's claim for overtime wages instead of rejecting it, considering the way the plaintiff worked, as explained.”

The Court emphasized that senior executives determine their working hours and method themselves and cannot claim overtime wages.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2019/7000 E., 2020/16545 K., 24.11.2020 T.

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the local court's decision to reject the overtime wage claims of the plaintiff, who was a regional manager in Bursa, while the general manager was in Istanbul, based on the reasoning that the plaintiff could determine his own work schedule.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2012/11165 E., 2013/23723 K., 24.09.2013 T.

Here, the Supreme Court upheld the local court's decision to reject the overtime wage claim of the plaintiff, who was a bank manager, on the grounds that he determined both his own and all employees' working hours and was the highest authority at the branch where he worked.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2021/6100 E., 2021/13143 K., 28.09.2021 T.

The Court rejected the overtime claim of an employee with the titles of chief physician, responsible manager, and operations manager at a hospital, citing that he determined his own working hours and received a salary seven times the minimum wage.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2020/5293 E., 2021/3486 K., 04.02.2021 T.

In this decision, the Supreme Court rejected the overtime wage claim of the plaintiff, who was a construction site manager, considering his salary, which was three times the minimum wage, and his authority to determine his own work schedule.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2007/18589 E., 2008/7133 K., 01.04.2008 T.

The Court stated that the plaintiff, who was a flight services manager, could not claim overtime wages due to his high salary and the fact that he received bonuses from sales and was provided with a vehicle for commuting.

General Approach of the Supreme Court

The mere status of being a senior executive or receiving a high salary does not automatically mean that such employees cannot claim overtime wages. Without considering the title of the senior executive, if an employee receiving a high salary and additional benefits determines his own working hours, and if it is impossible to prove whether he worked overtime, it should be accepted that no overtime work was performed.

Various scenarios require cautiousness regarding whether senior executives can claim overtime wages. The Supreme Court also approaches the issue cautiously in its decisions.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2010/4805 E., 2012/12361 K., 11.04.2012 T.

The Court stated: “If a worker in a senior executive position is paid a salary commensurate with his duties and responsibilities, he cannot additionally claim overtime wages. However, if another executive or company partner at the same location gives orders and instructions to the worker in a senior executive position, it cannot be said that the worker determines his own working days and hours, and therefore, he can claim overtime wages for work exceeding the legal limits. Therefore, it should be investigated whether an order was given for overtime work in terms of senior executives.”

Supreme Court Decision: 7th Civil Chamber, 2014/7926 E., 2014/15061 K., 02.04.2014 T.

The Court emphasized that the claim for overtime wages of the plaintiff, who held the title of general manager, should not be rejected merely because of his title, and it should be investigated whether another executive or company partner gave orders and instructions to the plaintiff.

Supreme Court Decision: 22nd Civil Chamber, 2017/32443 E., 2020/2784 K., 18.02.2020 T.

The Court stated: “In a working arrangement where the worker is almost entirely independent in determining his working hours, working hours cannot be a determining factor. In this case, proof of overtime work is also not an issue. Based on these explanations, when the concrete case is evaluated, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was responsible for the sale of security system products in line with the targets set by the defendant company. It is also a fixed fact that the plaintiff worked alone while performing his job. During the trial, the plaintiff argued that, based on the emails submitted to the case file, the daily schedule was made during a morning meeting at the workplace, the company's sales were monitored, and a report was given to the employer in the evening, so the plaintiff did not work in a completely free time period as claimed. The defendant employer argued that the plaintiff worked by an appointment system and that he set his own appointments. In the concrete case, it was not investigated who arranged the plaintiff's appointments and how, whether the plaintiff had to reach a certain number of appointments daily or weekly, whether he had to report to the workplace at the beginning or end of the working hours, whether he planned the work to be done the next day together with the employer. These aspects should be investigated by the court, and if there are any, especially the daily activity plans and work schedules of the plaintiff should be examined together with all other evidence in the case file to determine whether the plaintiff can prove his overtime work claim.”

Supreme Court Decision on Wage Slips

The Supreme Court has ruled that the presence of overtime accruals on the employee's wage slips alone does not eliminate the employee's status as a senior executive. In the relevant decision, 9th Civil Chamber, 2021/12693 E., 2022/1019 K., 25.01.2022 T., the Court ruled that the plaintiff, who was a construction site manager, had overtime accruals on his wage slips, which constitutes a presumption of overtime work, but that the status of the employee as a senior executive, who determines his working hours, cannot be disregarded solely based on the wage slip accruals.

Supreme Court Decision on Store Manager

The Supreme Court stated that the plaintiff, who was a store manager, could be entitled to overtime wages when the overtime accruals on his wage slips were considered together with witness statements. In the relevant decision, 22nd Civil Chamber, 2015/25211 E., 2018/3223 K., 14.02.2018 T., the Court found the local court's reasoning erroneous, which rejected the plaintiff's overtime claims on the grounds that the plaintiff, as a store manager, had no superior giving orders and determined his own working hours. The Court noted that the wage slips showed overtime accruals, and witness statements confirmed the plaintiff's overtime work, thereby ruling that the plaintiff's overtime claims should be calculated and the accruals on the unsigned wage slips should be offset against the calculated claim.

Supreme Court Decision: 9th Civil Chamber, 2013/51 E., 2014/35459 K., 25.11.2014 T.

The Court stated that the plaintiff had agreed to overtime work in his employment contract, which stipulated a 50% increase in the overtime pay, and concluded that the plaintiff was not a senior executive because he had a superior giving orders and instructions. The Court found the local court's assessment, which stated that the plaintiff determined his own working schedule, erroneous.

Note:

This article benefited from Canan UNAL ADINIR's work "İş Hukukunda Üst Düzey Yöneticiler: Senior Executives in Labor Law."