May 1st Holiday Compliance: Understanding Employer Obligations

May 1st, Labor and Solidarity Day, is a universal day that has become a symbol of workers’ struggle for humane working conditions, dating back to the late 19th century. As in the rest of the world, May 1st has been a subject of both social movements and legal regulations in Turkey throughout history. Initially celebrated as an official holiday in 1923, this day has been observed in various ways over the years, often influenced by different social and political dynamics, and at times banned or restricted. Finally, in 2009, with the enactment of Law No. 5892, May 1st was granted official holiday status under the name “Labor and Solidarity Day,” which brought about significant legal consequences in terms of labor law. This note will address the legal obligations that May 1st, as an official holiday, imposes on employers, specifically focusing on wages, work organization, and labor regulations.

Legal Status of May 1st

Article 47 of the Turkish Labor Law No. 4857 stipulates that if an employee does not work on national holidays or public holidays, their full wage must be paid, and if they work, an additional full day's wage must be paid on top of their regular wage. Therefore, employees who do not work on May 1st have the legal right to receive payment from their employer without any expectation of reciprocity. Employees who work on this day, on the other hand, are entitled to a 100% premium on their wage. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals has ruled that to receive an additional full day's wage for working on a national holiday or public holiday, the employee is not required to complete a full shift, and even if the work done is less than a full shift, the employee is still entitled to an additional full day's wage.

Employer’s Responsibility in Mandatory Services and Work Organization

In certain sectors—such as healthcare, security, and transportation—the continuity of services is essential. In these sectors, the employer is required to plan work shifts that require employees to work on May 1st in compliance with legal standards. While the employer does not need the employee’s consent to organize such shifts, it is crucial that the employer does not make substantial changes to working conditions and does not infringe upon the employee's right to participate in public gatherings and demonstrations, as guaranteed by Article 34 of the Turkish Constitution.

Employee’s Right to Refuse to Work on May 1st

As May 1st is a legal holiday, employees are entitled to refrain from working on this day. However, Article 44 of Labor Law No. 4857 stipulates that if the employment contract contains a provision that requires the employee to work on general holidays, the employee can be obligated to work on these days. Nevertheless, an employee who fails to attend work on May 1st due to participation in union activities may be considered to have a just cause, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. This situation requires the employer to exercise their disciplinary authority in a proportionate manner. Employees who do not have such a provision in their employment contract can only be required to work with their consent.

Conclusion

May 1st, while being a symbol of workers’ rights, is also a day that must be carefully managed by employers. Employers have an obligation to pay wages to their workers on this date, to organize work schedules within legal limits, and to respect constitutional rights. Organizing work in compliance with the law is important not only for legal compliance but also for the protection of the corporate reputation.

For further inquiries or legal assistance, feel free to contact Durukan+Partners team.

References

Centel, T. (2020). Ulusal bayram ve genel tatil günlerinde çalışma. Legal İş Hukuku Dergisi, 18(2), 45–61.Süzek, S. (2023). İş hukuku. İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.Republic of Turkey. (2003). Labor Law No. 4857. Official Gazette, 10.06.2003, Issue: 25134.Republic of Turkey. (2009). Law No. 5892. Official Gazette, 22.04.2009, Issue: 27208.Court of Appeals, 9th Civil Chamber. (2020). E. 2017/18461, K. 2020/15353, T. 9.11.2020.