Overtime Ruling from the Court of Cassation: Employees May Withdraw Their Consent and Cannot Be Dismissed for This Reason

Attorney Gizem Gonce commented: “An employee’s withdrawal of consent to overtime cannot, on its own, constitute grounds for dismissal.”

The practice of overtime, which directly concerns employees in working life, has returned to the spotlight following a ruling by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation. In a dispute concerning the dismissal of an employee for withdrawing previously given consent to overtime in accordance with the legislation, the Court of Cassation upheld the decision in favor of the employee. The ruling is significant for the rights of employees who do not wish to work overtime and the limits of an employer’s power to terminate employment.

The case before the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, dated 18 February 2026, Case No. 2026/692 and Decision No. 2026/1453, addressed a dispute over severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice arising from an employee’s withdrawal of consent to overtime and the subsequent termination of their employment contract.

In the circumstances underlying the decision, an employee who had worked at the same workplace from 2014 to 2024 informed the employer that they did not wish to work overtime. The employer, however, argued that the employee had previously agreed to work overtime and that this stance adversely affected working arrangements at the workplace. As the dispute was brought before the courts, the issue was whether the employee’s withdrawal of consent to overtime constituted sufficient grounds for termination.

The court of first instance ruled in favor of the employee. The regional court of appeal also dismissed the employer’s appeal. Having examined the case, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the regional court of appeal’s decision on 18 February 2026.

Attorney Gizem Gonce: Employees have the right to withdraw their consent to overtime

Commenting on the ruling, Attorney Gizem Gonce states that overtime practices cannot be treated as falling within an employer’s unlimited managerial authority and emphasizes the need to protect employees’ statutory rights.

Can an employee subsequently refuse overtime to which they previously agreed?

Article 9 of the Regulation on Overtime Work and Work for Additional Hours under the Labour Law contains an express provision on this matter. An employee may withdraw previously given consent to overtime work or work for additional hours, provided that they give the employer 30 days’ prior written notice.

Accordingly, the fact that an employee agreed to work overtime when starting employment does not mean that this consent cannot be withdrawn under any circumstances. Nor may an employer deprive the employee of this right solely on the basis of consent previously given in the employment contract.

What matters here is compliance with the prescribed procedure and notice period for withdrawing consent. The date on which the employee gave written notice and whether that notice reached the employer may be significant in a potential dispute.

Can an employee who refuses overtime be dismissed?

What is the most important consequence of the Court of Cassation’s ruling for employees?

The important point established by the ruling is that withdrawal of consent to overtime cannot, on its own, be regarded as sufficient grounds for terminating an employment contract for just cause or a valid reason.

Although employers have managerial prerogatives, this authority must be exercised within the limits set by employment legislation. An employee’s proper exercise of a legally recognized right cannot automatically be characterized as a breach of their duty to perform work.

However, this assessment does not mean that an employee may refuse every request to perform work. Performing duties during ordinary working hours and refusing a request to work overtime are different matters. The law also contains special provisions on overtime for compelling reasons or in extraordinary circumstances.

For this reason, the work the employee refused, when consent was withdrawn, and the employer’s stated grounds for termination must each be examined separately in every case.

Can an employer dismiss an employee who refuses overtime for just cause?

What conditions must be met under the Labour Law?

Article 25, paragraph II, subparagraph (h) of Labour Law No. 4857 lists an employee’s persistence in refusing to perform duties they are obliged to carry out, despite being reminded of those duties, among the grounds for termination for just cause.

However, for this provision to apply, there must first be a duty that the employee is obliged to perform, and their persistence in refusing to perform that duty must be established in the particular case.

An employee’s refusal to perform ordinary overtime following the withdrawal of their consent to overtime in accordance with the legislation does not, on its own, constitute grounds for termination for just cause under this provision. This is because refusing work that is not legally mandatory and failing to perform contractual duties are not the same situation.

An employer’s reliance solely on an employee’s unwillingness to work overtime when deciding to terminate employment may give rise to serious legal risks. Whether termination is based on just cause or a valid reason must be assessed in light of all the circumstances of the dispute.

Can an employee claim severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice?

What rights might an employee dismissed for refusing overtime have?

Where an employment contract is terminated by the employer, whether the employee is entitled to severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice is determined by their length of service, the reason for termination, and the other statutory conditions.

The dismissal of an employee because they withdrew their consent to overtime requires a separate examination of the lawfulness of the termination. Where termination is not based on just cause and the other conditions are met, the employee may claim severance pay and compensation in lieu of notice.

Where employment protection provisions apply, an action for reinstatement may also be possible if the relevant conditions are met. However, conditions such as the number of employees at the workplace, length of service, the termination notice, and statutory time limits for seeking relief must be assessed separately in relation to a reinstatement claim.

It cannot be said that every dispute will produce the same legal outcome. The employee’s employment contract, working arrangements at the workplace, written notices, and termination documents must be examined together.

What should employees do to avoid a loss of rights?

How should employees who do not wish to work overtime proceed?

First, if an employee wishes to withdraw their consent to overtime, they must comply with the 30-day notice period specified in the Regulation and give notice in writing. It is also important to retain records showing that the notice reached the employer.

The employee should also retain their employment contract, any consent to overtime, pay slips, work schedules, and correspondence with the employer. If the employment contract is terminated, the termination notice and its grounds should be examined carefully.

Just as not every termination by an employer is automatically unlawful, not every reason put forward by an employer is sufficient on its own. The legal assessment must be made according to the circumstances of the particular case.

The impact of the Court of Cassation’s ruling on working life

The ruling of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 18 February 2026 is noteworthy because it upheld the decision in favor of the employee in a dispute concerning dismissal for withdrawing consent to overtime.

The ruling highlights the importance of balancing an employer’s managerial prerogatives with an employee’s rights concerning working hours. An employee’s ability to withdraw consent to overtime demonstrates that statutory rights in working life cannot be removed solely on the basis of earlier statements in a contract.

In Attorney Gizem Gonce’s assessment: Both employees and employers must act in accordance with the legislation in relation to overtime practices. It is important for employees to comply with the written notice and time requirements, and for employers to base termination decisions on specific and legally valid reasons. To prevent a loss of rights in working life, employment contracts, working hours, and termination processes must be assessed within the legal framework.