{"id":3650,"date":"2026-04-27T14:09:53","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T11:09:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/?p=3650"},"modified":"2026-04-27T17:35:27","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T14:35:27","slug":"substantial-changes-in-working-conditions-implementation-of-surveillance-technologies-in-the-workplace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/substantial-changes-in-working-conditions-implementation-of-surveillance-technologies-in-the-workplace\/","title":{"rendered":"SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN WORKING CONDITIONS: IMPLEMENTATION OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES IN THE WORKPLACE"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\u0130rem \u00c7ITAK<\/strong>
Lawyer<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the employer, monitoring the employee is both a right conferred upon the employer and an obligation. The employer’s managerial authority encompasses the duty of supervision and monitoring, which is necessary for the interests of the employees and simultaneously for the employer to conduct their commercial activities efficiently. This duty finds its legal basis in Article 4\/I-(b) of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, which states: “The employer (…) shall monitor and inspect compliance with occupational health and safety measures taken at the workplace and ensure that any non-conformities are remedied.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As digital transformation and the impact of technology on business life continuously increase, the methods by which employers monitor and supervise their employees are also diversifying. With the development of digitalization and technologies such as artificial intelligence, surveillance practices have rapidly become widespread and more complex. Among the primary reasons for employers’ orientation toward these technologies are the objectives of increasing efficiency, improving security measures, and optimizing work processes. While applications such as software tracking computer usage, e-mail inspections, and camera surveillance systems offer employers the opportunity to monitor employee performance and productivity, they also carry a dimension that conflicts with employees’ right to privacy of their private lives. This situation raises legal issues that need to be addressed particularly within the framework of the concept of substantial change in the employment contract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. THE CONCEPT OF WORKING CONDITIONS AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be stated at the outset that, in a general sense, working conditions refer to all conditions to which the work performance obligation is subject and under which the employment relationship operates. Matters concerning the performance of work, such as the place of performance, time of performance, remuneration, working hours, and annual paid leave durations, constitute working conditions.\u00b9 The legal foundations of working conditions are the Constitution, statutory provisions, collective bargaining agreements, employment contracts, workplace internal regulations, workplace practices, and the employer’s right of management.\u00b2 \u00b3 While private sources cannot contravene official sources, the hierarchical ordering among private sources must be determined taking into account the specific characteristics of labor law.\u2074<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employee’s obligation to perform work and the employer’s corresponding obligation to pay remuneration, which are the essential elements of the employment contract, are the most important working conditions. Furthermore, where and when the work will be performed, working hours at the workplace, annual leave durations, supplements to the remuneration to be paid, rest breaks, and social assistance such as marriage, birth, education, food, disability, and death benefits also take their place among working conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Changes in working conditions are directly related to the employer’s right of management. The employer takes necessary measures for the conduct of work regarding the profitability and efficiency of the workplace. The employer determines the manner, time, and nature of the service in fulfilling the work performance obligation. The employer’s right of management finds application in gaps not explicitly regulated in the employment contract between the parties or in the collective bargaining agreement applied at the workplace.\u2075<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the contentious areas of labor law is establishing a balanced line between the determination of working conditions, the implementation and modification processes of these conditions, and the employer’s right of management. As is known, labor law has a structure that continuously develops and aims for progress in terms of worker rights, and improving the employee’s rights throughout the employment relationship is one of the fundamental objectives of labor law. Parallel to this principle, a change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee cannot be made without obtaining the employee’s written consent. This matter is stipulated in Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857 as follows: “The employer may make a substantial change in working conditions formed through the employment contract or sources in the nature of attachments to the employment contract such as personnel regulations and similar sources or through workplace practices only by notifying the employee in writing. Changes not made in this form and not accepted in writing by the employee within six working days shall not bind the employee. If the employee does not accept the change proposal within this period, the employer may terminate the employment contract by explaining in writing that the change is based on a valid reason or that there exists another valid reason for termination and by complying with the notice period.” and it is explicitly regulated that substantial changes made without the employee’s consent shall not bind the employee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Court of Cassation practice, substantial changes are changes that aggravate the employee’s working conditions and cause radical differences in the employee’s job description. In other words, the substantial change regulated in Article 22 of the Labor Law No. 4857 encompasses changes that will result in the employee’s material or moral loss.\u2076 In cases where changes are made to working conditions in favor of the employee, there can be no mention of substantial change. Likewise, if the change made by the employer in working conditions falls within the scope of the right of management, it will not constitute a substantial change and Article 22 of the Labor Law will not be applied.\u2077<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In cases where the employee does not accept the substantial change in working conditions, if the relevant change is based on a valid reason, the employer may terminate the employee’s employment contract for a valid reason by explaining the relevant reason in writing and complying with notice periods. This matter was expressed in the decision of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber dated 15.10.2024 and numbered E.2024\/12293, K.2024\/13588 as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“If the employee does not accept the substantial change in working conditions and continues to work at the workplace, the change is deemed not to have occurred and the contract is considered to continue under the previous conditions. In this situation, the employer may either abandon the change proposal and request the continuation of the contract under the previous conditions, or terminate the contract by explaining in writing that the change in working conditions is based on a valid reason or that there exists another reason for termination and complying with the notice period.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Article 22 of the Labor Law does not regulate that the employee may terminate the employment contract with just cause due to substantial change in working conditions, since the modification of working conditions simultaneously means the non-application of the conditions, a right of termination with just cause will arise for the employee under Article 24\/II-f “…if working conditions are not applied” of the Labor Law. In this direction, the employee may terminate the employment contract with just cause based on substantial change and may request seniority indemnity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surveillance technologies encompass various tools and systems used in the business world to monitor employees’ performance, safety, and activities. To exemplify some of today’s sophisticated surveillance technologies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Video and Image Surveillance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

CCTV (Closed-Circuit Television) Systems: Widely used in workplaces for security purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IP Cameras: Offer remote monitoring capability through internet access.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facial Recognition Technology: Can be used for employees’ identity verification procedures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Employee Tracking Software<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Screen Recording Software: Monitors and records activities on employees’ computer screens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keyboard and Mouse Tracking Systems: Analyze keyboard keystrokes and mouse movements to measure employees’ productivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Application and Web Usage Monitoring: Tracks which applications and websites employees use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Location and Movement Tracking<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

GPS Tracking: Monitors employees’ locations through vehicle tracking systems or mobile devices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RFID (Radio Frequency Identification): Used to monitor employees’ entries and exits to certain areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wearable Devices: Track employees’ physical activities and locations through smart watches or sensors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Biometric Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fingerprint and Retina Scanners: Widely used for access control and identity verification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Voice Recognition Technology: Used for identity verification and security in call centers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Artificial Intelligence and Analytic Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behavior Analysis Systems: Detect risky behaviors by analyzing employees’ e-mail and messaging content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performance Evaluation Software: Use big data and analytic methods to evaluate employees’ work performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Communication Surveillance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

E-mail and Messaging Surveillance: Monitoring of corporate e-mail accounts or messaging applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Call Recording Systems: Record and analyze employees’ customer conversations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Environmental and Physical Monitoring Systems<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IoT Sensors: Monitor environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, light, and air quality in work areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smart Card Systems: Track employees’ physical access movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Health and Safety Monitoring Technologies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wearable Health Monitoring Devices: Track employees’ heart rate, stress levels, and other biometric data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accident Detection Systems: Detect situations such as falls or injuries to increase safety of employees working in hazardous jobs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Technologies Used in Hybrid and Remote Work<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Screen Sharing and Surveillance Software: Enable employees to share their screens with the employer during remote work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Activity Monitoring Applications: Check whether employees are active throughout working hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Voice and Visual Assistants<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speech Recognition and Analytic Systems: Provide improvements in customer relationship management by analyzing employees’ conversations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First and foremost, it must be noted that one of the purposes of the Personal Data Protection Law No. 6698 (“KVKK”) is also the protection of employees’ personal data collected and processed by the employer. If the data obtained within the scope of surveillance technologies renders the employee’s identity specific or identifiable, the collection and processing of such data must be based on the employee’s explicit consent or other legal grounds for compliance such as KVKK’s legitimate interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, although the use of these technologies serves employers’ needs regarding ensuring efficiency, if it is determined that this situation aggravates the employee’s working conditions, the change may be deemed substantial. On the other hand, the relevant substantial change must be based on a valid reason, and ensuring occupational health and safety at the workplace and consequently the protection of employees can be counted among the primary valid reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to the absence of special regulation on the subject in Turkish Labor Law, when the good faith rule located in Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Law No. 4721 and the provision of Article 24, the employer’s obligation to supervise the employee, and Article 22 of the Labor Law are evaluated together, it may be considered that supervision conducted with technological tools regarding occupational safety and health, as long as it is exclusive to occupational health, remains within the scope of the employer’s right of management, and consequently will not constitute a substantial change and will not be subject to the employee’s consent. However, it must be accepted that obtaining the employee’s consent is necessary in regulations to be made for purposes such as supervision of production processes and work organization, protection of enterprise assets and equipment.\u2078<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, surveillance technologies can create intense pressure on employees by making their every movement traceable. For example, screen recording software and keyboard\/mouse tracking systems reinforce the perception that employees are being continuously monitored. This situation may cause an increase in psychological stress in the workplace. Likewise, artificial intelligence-based performance evaluation systems may lead to employees being under productivity pressure with the fear of making mistakes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, e-mail and messaging surveillance carries the risk of monitoring the employee’s personal communications as well. GPS tracking can create a system where the employee’s location outside of working hours, not only during work hours, can be monitored, and such applications may, first and foremost, contravene Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and may constitute interference with individuals’ private lives and freedom of communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Performance tracking software may lead to employees being forced to demonstrate continuously high performance, and employees may think that the employer uses these systems not only for performance evaluation but in a punitive manner. Consequently, when the use of surveillance technologies in the workplace is excessive, it may aggravate employees’ working conditions and bring to the agenda the employee’s right to terminate with just cause, as well as give rise to claims that the employer has acted contrary to various legal obligations, primarily KVKK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. COURT DECISIONS AND INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the view generally accepted in doctrine, substantial change in working conditions refers to changes that exceed the employer’s right of management, aggravate the employee’s situation, and which the employee cannot reasonably be expected to accept within the framework of the principle of good faith.\u2079 The Court of Cassation essentially takes as the fundamental criterion whether there is an aggravation in the employee’s working conditions. Changes made in cases where working conditions are aggravated are considered substantial changes. According to the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, “changes remaining within the framework of the employer’s right of management are not evaluated as substantial changes.” However, changes that exceed the limits of the right of management and aggravate the employee’s conditions are accepted as being in the nature of substantial change.\u00b9\u2070<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the European Court of Human Rights case of B\u0103rbulescu v. Romania, it emphasized that employees have a certain right to privacy in the workplace within the scope of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the employee whose employment contract was terminated on the grounds that they used the e-mail system at the workplace for personal correspondence. Again, according to the ECtHR, the employer’s monitoring of communication tools must be done only under certain conditions, based on a legitimate justification, and in a proportionate manner. The employer’s monitoring of e-mails may be done to protect work processes, but during this process, it is necessary to inform the employee in advance and clearly specify the limits of the monitoring activity. In B\u0103rbulescu’s case, it was determined that sufficient transparency and information were not provided by the employer. The ECtHR evaluated the purpose of the employer’s monitoring activity and the necessity of the interference and concluded that the employer did not consider ways that would interfere less with the privacy of its employees. The Court decided that Romania had not fulfilled its obligation to ensure respect for the applicant’s private life and freedom of correspondence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the relevant decision is evaluated in terms of substantial change in working conditions, it leads to the result that such monitoring activities can directly affect employees’ behaviors in the workplace and working conditions. The monitoring practice may damage the trust relationship in employer-employee relations and may substantially change the working conditions in the workplace. In the B\u0103rbulescu case, the employer’s implementing the monitoring practice without notice and basing the dismissal decision on this data may be evaluated as a unilateral and severe change in working conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, in cases where substantial change is made in working conditions, the employer has the obligation to inform the employee and clearly specify the justifications for this change. Surveillance and monitoring practices in the workplace can be applied only in a legitimate and proportionate manner by respecting employees’ right to privacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of surveillance technologies in business life requires establishing a sensitive balance between employee rights and the employer’s legitimate interests. Such practices, which may be evaluated within the scope of substantial change, bring to the agenda the obligation to protect employees’ right to privacy and to apply the employer’s right of management in a balanced manner. Employers must regulate surveillance practices in a manner that shows respect for employees’ private lives while meeting the requirements of the work and being measured. In this context, it is of great importance that monitoring processes are transparent, that employees are provided with clear information in advance, and that their approvals are obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within this scope, it may be recommended that employers include explicit provisions regarding the use of surveillance technologies in employment contracts and create data processing policies compliant with KVKK. Furthermore, while determining the scope and duration of monitoring technologies, the principle of proportionality must be complied with, and only data required by the work should be collected. Such measures will both protect the employer’s legitimate interests and prevent the violation of employees’ fundamental rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b9 EKONOM\u0130, M., “Determination of Working Conditions and Compliance with Changing Principles”, Tribute to Prof. Dr. Kemal O\u011fuzman, Ankara 1997, p.158.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b2 TA\u015eKENT, S., Employer’s Right of Management, \u0130stanbul 1981, p.43 et seq.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b3 Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber’s decision dated 6.11.2017 and numbered 2015\/19059 E., 2017\/24181 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2074 \u00c7AMO\u011eLU, M. “Substantial Change in Working Conditions According to Labor Law No. 4857”, Bah\u00e7e\u015fehir University Graduate School of Education, \u0130stanbul 2022, p.12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2075 Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly’s decision dated 5.4.2017 and numbered 2015\/22-3050 E., 2017\/605 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2076 G\u00d6KTA\u015e S., President of Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, Unjust Termination in Turkish Labor Law, Ankara 2020, p.138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2077 S\u00dcZEK., S. Labor Law, General Principles \u2013 Individual Labor Law, Renewed 14th Edition, \u0130stanbul 2017, p.681.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2078 ERDEM\u0130R, M., Employer’s Right of Management and Its Limits, Se\u00e7kin Publishing, May 2015, Ankara, p.174.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2079 \u015eEN, M., “Change in Working Conditions”, Ankara 2005, p.108; DO\u011eAN YEN\u0130SEY, K., “Change in Working Conditions and Termination of Employment Contract”, Labor and Society, No. 3, 2010\/3, p. 95.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00b9\u2070 \u00c7AMO\u011eLU op.cit. p.5. (For decisions see Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber’s decision dated 13.11.2019 and numbered 2016\/22397 E., 2019\/20993 K., Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber’s decision dated 13.12.2010 and numbered 2009\/39668 E., 2010\/37397 K., Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber’s decision dated 07.07.2017 and numbered 2015\/15592 E., 2017\/16616 K., Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber’s decision dated 10.10.2008 and numbered 2007\/27670 E., 2008\/26213 K., Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber’s decision dated 17.07.2011 and numbered 2009\/19275 E., 2011\/23293 K.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u0130rem \u00c7ITAKLawyer INTRODUCTION For the employer, monitoring the employee is both a right conferred upon the employer and an obligation. The employer’s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3674,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[20,21,22,23],"class_list":["post-3650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-makale","tag-icsid","tag-investment-arbitration","tag-isds","tag-mic"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3650"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3650\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3651,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3650\/revisions\/3651"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3674"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}