Does the Employer Have an Obligation to Provide Transportation Allowance and Shuttle Service if There is No Provision in the Employment Contract? In light of the reviewed court decisions and documents; the employer’s obligations and waiver status when there is no regulation regarding transportation allowance or shuttle service in the employment contract are detailed below.
1. Transportation Allowance / Shuttle Service Provision: Legal Obligation and Employer’s Management Right
Within the scope of Labor Law No. 4857, there is no legal obligation for the employer to pay meal or transportation allowance to employees or provide transportation by shuttle service. In the decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals General Assembly of Civil Chambers and relevant departments, it has been clearly stated that such social benefits are at the employer’s initiative and are evaluated within the scope of management authority. Supreme Court of Appeals General Assembly of Civil Chambers (2021/518, 2021/515, Istanbul 2nd Civil Court of Commerce (2023/744).
2. Obligation Status in the Absence of a Provision in the Contract
If there is no explicit clause regarding transportation allowance or shuttle service in the employment contract, as a rule, the employer’s obligation to transport the employee to the workplace or pay a transportation allowance ceases.
Rejection of Claim: If there is no provision in the individual employment contract stating that travel expenses will be paid or covered in kind, and workplace practice cannot be proven, claims for transportation allowance are rejected by the courts.
Example Decision: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals (2014/14050) found the local court’s acceptance decision erroneous because there was no provision in the contract.
Waiver and New Contract: If a new contract signed between the parties does not contain a provision regarding travel expenses, even if the employee previously received this right, the silence in the new contract can be interpreted as the employer waiving this payment or the obligation being lifted.
Example Ruling: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals (2022/4958K) considered the absence of a provision in the new contract as a reason for dismissing the case.
3. Exception: Workplace Practice and Material Change in Working Conditions
Even if there is no written provision in the contract, if the payment of travel expenses or the provision of shuttle service has become a “workplace practice,” the employer cannot unilaterally abolish this practice.
Principle of Material Change: Travel assistance, which has become a workplace practice, gains the characteristic of a working condition. The employer can only change or abolish this condition by giving written notice to the employee and obtaining the employee’s written consent within six business days, in accordance with Article 22 of the Labor Law.
Prohibition of Unilateral Abolition: Changes made without the employee’s written consent (such as the cessation of travel expenses or the removal of shuttle service) are not binding on the employee, and even if there is no provision in the contract, the employer is deemed obliged to continue under the old conditions. Court of Appeals General Assembly of Civil Chambers (2015/3063, 2015/3056).
4. Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for the existence of a travel allowance or shuttle right lies with the employee. If there is no provision in the contract, the employee must prove that this situation is a workplace practice or that it was promised to them with evidence “beyond all doubt”.
Insufficiency of Witness Statements: Statements from witnesses such as “it was said that a travel allowance would be paid” are not considered sufficient if the authority of the person making the promise is unclear or if they are not supported by payroll records. Turkish Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber (2024/3287, 2016/21511), Turkish Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber (2017/23173).
Public Tenders and Specifications: If there is no provision in the tender specifications stating that the travel expenses for subcontractor employees belong to the contractor, the contractor cannot be asked to cover these expenses. Public Procurement Authority Decision (2024/UH.II-1287).
Conclusion: If there is no clause regarding travel and travel allowance in the employment contract and this situation has not become a consistent workplace practice, the employer has no obligation to transport the employee to the workplace or pay travel expenses. The employer can refuse to make this payment if there is no contractual basis or established practice (vested right). A article suggestion.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
The absence of a provision regarding travel expenses or shuttle service in an employment contract, although seemingly a simple matter of interpretation at first glance, has become a highly technical and specialized area of law due to the diversity of Supreme Court case law. Issues such as whether the claim for travel expenses is contract-based, whether it can be considered a workplace practice, whether a fundamental change has been made in working conditions, the validity of the employee’s waiver, and how the burden of proof will be met, can lead to serious loss of rights for either the employee or the employer if misinterpreted. In particular, the assessment of whether a workplace practice has been established requires professional legal support, as it involves complex evidentiary issues such as payroll review, the weight of witness statements, and the validity of commitments made by an employer’s official.
The incorrect application of the concept of “fundamental change in working conditions”, as regulated in Article 22 of the Labor Law, can result in an invalid transaction for the employer and, for the employee, may lead to consequences such as termination for just cause or the rejection of claims for receivables. Even the Supreme Court’s decisions on the same matter from different years create significant variations in interpretation in practice, making it imperative for the process to be managed by an expert lawyer. Especially in cases such as the discontinuation of shuttle service, the cessation of travel assistance, or the claim of a practice despite the absence of a contractual provision, the accurate preparation of the file and the strategic presentation of evidence are of critical importance.
Therefore, for employees and employers facing disputes such as travel expenses, service rights, changes in working conditions, workplace practices, or waivers, working with an experienced team in labor law, such as 2M Hukuk Avukatlık Bürosu , which provides services in Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Kadıköy, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Gebze, Dilovası, Çayırova, and throughout Istanbul, is of great importance in preventing loss of rights. Expert lawyer support ensures the establishment of a correct evidence strategy, the appropriate application of Supreme Court precedents to the case, and the fastest and most effective resolution of the dispute.
