07.08.2026 15:11
A decision of a 'good news' nature came from the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation for those working on commission. The High Court ruled that target-based and variable-amount sales commissions must be added to the clothed wage (all-inclusive wage) subject to severance pay. It was emphasized that the fact that the worker does not receive the same amount of commission every month or only earns the right to commission during periods when the sales target is achieved is not sufficient to exclude these payments from the clothed wage.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation made a landmark decision affecting millions of commission-based workers. The Supreme Court ruled that variable bonuses tied to sales targets must also be included in the grossed-up salary used as the basis for severance pay.
WORKER TERMINATED THEIR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND WENT TO COURT
A worker terminated their employment contract, stating that their weekly working hours exceeded the legal limit and that they performed additional work due to inventory counts, training, and meetings, demanding severance pay and overtime wages. Seeking their rights, the aggrieved worker went to the Labor Court, citing as grounds for justified termination: 'unpaid labor receivables, arbitrary setting of sales targets, obstruction of receiving bonuses, practices violating the duty of equal treatment, assignment of heavy tasks by superiors, severe accusations about performance, and actions constituting psychological harassment.' The plaintiff worker stated that they worked as a team leader, received a base salary plus bonuses based on sales volume, and also benefited from meal, transportation, and private health insurance assistance. The defendant employer argued that the worker terminated the employment contract by resigning without just cause. The employer further requested dismissal of the case, claiming that all labor receivables were paid in full, sales bonuses were dependent on targets, the worker failed to meet sales targets, work was conducted on a compensatory time basis, and overtime work was reflected in payrolls and paid.
LABOR COURT FOUND THE WORKER JUSTIFIED
The Labor Court based its decision on the attendance records for the period they covered. The court determined that the worker had 19.5 hours of unpaid overtime. For periods without records, witness testimonies and the worker's claim were taken into account. It was accepted that the worker justifiably terminated the employment contract due to unpaid overtime wages at the time of termination. Claims for severance pay and overtime wages were partially upheld.
REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL EXCLUDED BONUS PAYMENTS FROM SEVERANCE PAY
Upon the employer's appeal, the Regional Court of Appeal reviewed the file and found the determinations that the worker had unpaid overtime and that the termination was based on just cause to be correct. It concluded that the bonuses shown as "CPS Bonus" on the payrolls were not continuous. It stated that the worker demonstrated the bonuses were not permanent. Therefore, it excluded the bonus payments from the grossed-up salary used for severance pay. When the plaintiff's lawyer appealed the decision, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation intervened. It was reminded that, in determining the wage to be used as the basis for severance pay, in addition to the primary wage mentioned in Article 32 of Labor Law No. 4857, benefits provided to the worker in money or measurable in monetary terms are taken into account. It was stated that continuous bonuses, fuel aid, clothing aid, rent, lighting, shuttle service, meal assistance, and similar payments are considered in the severance pay calculation.
COURT OF CASSATION: EVEN FUEL AID IS ADDED TO COMPENSATION
In the Court of Cassation decision: 'Private health insurance assistance or life insurance premium payments provided to the worker also fall within the concept of benefits measurable in monetary terms and should be added to the wage used for compensation. Even if the bonus calculated based on sales figures or other data varies, it should be evaluated within the extended wage concept in the severance pay calculation. In the specific dispute; when the plaintiff's claim, the defendant's admission, witness testimonies, and payroll records are evaluated together, it is understood that the plaintiff received bonuses during periods when they met specific sales targets. Since the First Instance Court decision was appealed only by the defendant, and considering the procedural vested rights in favor of the defendant, while determining the grossed-up wage, it was erroneous not to include the bonus, as the monthly average of bonuses from the last year should have been calculated based on the existing payrolls and added to the wage, necessitating reversal. It was unanimously decided to reverse the Regional Court of Appeal decision.'