Inequalities in wage increases are one of the most common problems in working life. Wage raise discussions are relatively less common in corporate enterprises, where rules govern how wage increases will be made. However, inequalities in wage increases are very common in non-corporate businesses, which constitute the majority. The employer may give lower raises to some employees and no raises at all to others.
Article 5 of the Labor Law regulates the principle of equal treatment. If the principle of equal treatment is not complied with, discrimination compensation must be paid up to 4 months' salary of the worker. The situations in which discrimination compensation will be paid are clearly listed one by one in the law. If there is an inequality other than those listed above, then discrimination compensation will not be paid, but the worker will have the right to claim the loss of rights he suffered due to inequality. Workers who are entitled to receive discrimination compensation can claim both compensation and the losses they have suffered.
IN WHICH CASE IS DISCRIMINATION COMPENSATION PAID?
Before getting to the issue of inequality in wage increases, let's clarify the situations that require payment of discrimination compensation.
According to the law, no discrimination can be made in employment relationships based on language, race, colour, gender, disability, political opinion, philosophical belief, religion, sect "and similar" reasons. Unless there are fundamental reasons, the employer cannot treat a part-time worker differently than a full-time worker, or a fixed-term worker compared to an indefinite-term worker. The employer cannot take different actions, directly or indirectly, due to gender or pregnancy when hiring, employing or firing a worker, unless biological or reasons related to the nature of the job make it mandatory. A lower wage cannot be agreed for a job of the same or equal value because of gender. The application of special protective provisions due to the gender of the worker does not justify the application of a lower wage. For example, a pregnant worker cannot be paid a lower wage on the grounds that she has to work lighter jobs due to pregnancy.
These are absolute prohibitions of discrimination. The Supreme Court clarifies what should be understood by the expression "and so on". According to the Supreme Court, reasons such as the employee's sexual preference, political reasons or world view that do not cause negativities in the workplace are considered "similar reasons".
If the prohibitions I have mentioned are violated while the worker is working or being fired, the worker can claim the rights he/she has been deprived of in addition to discrimination compensation equal to up to four months' wages.
WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF?
The employee is obliged to prove that the employer violated the principle of equal treatment. However, when the employee presents a situation that strongly indicates the possibility of the existence of a violation, the employer is obliged to prove that such a violation does not exist.
The employer's obligation to treat his employees equally does not require that all workers be placed in the same situation without any discrimination. However, it aims to prevent equal treatment of workers in equal situations.
INEQUALITY IN WAGES SHOULD BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE REASONS
So, is it against the principle of equal treatment for the employer to raise workers' wages differently or to raise the wages of some workers while not increasing the wages of others? Can the worker claim the raise that was not made and the retroactive differences regarding wages and other receivables resulting from this raise?
In the file subject to the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated April 16, 2026 (Article No: 2026/923, Decision No: 2026/3270), while raises were given to peer managers, a person who was not given a raise demanded payment of the wage difference and bonus difference in addition to discrimination compensation. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the labor court and the regional court of justice regarding the rejection of the request.
In its decision, the Supreme Court found the labor court's decision regarding non-payment of discrimination compensation appropriate, but requested that the wage difference and bonus difference request be re-evaluated. In the decision of the Supreme Court, it was stated that "The departments and duties of the workers whose payrolls are submitted to the court should be determined and it should be determined whether they are comparable to the plaintiff. If different raise rates are applied to employees in the same position, or if one is given a raise while the other is not, and if the employer, who has the burden of proof, cannot demonstrate the existence of objective and objective reasons that will justify this distinction, it should be ruled that the plaintiff will receive difference wages and difference bonuses."
Accordingly, the employer who gives a 10 percent raise to some of his workers with the same qualifications doing the same job and a 5 percent raise to others, or not at all, must present objective reasons. If an objective reason cannot be shown, the employee has the right to demand the difference.
