Short answer
An airline employer may agree that training costs for an employee are linked to a commitment to work for a certain period. According to the Turkish Court of Cassation, such a commitment is valid as a rule. However, the commitment period must be proportionate to the type and cost of the training.
The amount to be refunded is reduced according to the time actually worked; if the full commitment period has been worked, no costs may be claimed. Costs of mandatory occupational health and safety training may never be claimed. Training costs and a penalty clause are different concepts. The relationship of pilots and cabin crew is, as a rule, governed not by the Labour Law but by the Turkish Code of Obligations.
1. Which law applies?
Under Article 4 of Labour Law No. 4857, the Law does not apply “in maritime and air transport work.” The employment relationship of pilots and cabin crew who take part in flights is therefore, as a rule, governed by the service contract provisions of the Turkish Code of Obligations. However, the same article states that “work carried out at all ground facilities of aviation” is subject to the Labour Law. The assessment differs for ground staff.
2. Training costs, work commitment and penalty clause
| Concept | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Training costs | Expenditure actually incurred by the employer for the employee’s training (tuition, accommodation, travel, etc.) |
| Work commitment | The employee’s undertaking to work for the employer for a certain period in return for the training |
| Penalty clause | A penalty agreed to be paid in case of breach of contract (Code of Obligations, Art. 179). The judge reduces, of its own motion, a penalty it considers excessive (Art. 182) |
Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, 08.06.2022, Docket 2022/6142, Decision 2022/7339: The Chamber held that an amount set in an undertaking, by listing each expense to be incurred for training, was “not a penalty clause but training costs that must be paid.”
Whether a clause is a training cost provision or a penalty clause is determined by its content. This distinction may affect the outcome in terms of reduction and proof.
Under Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a contractual penalty imposed solely against the employee in an employment contract is invalid. Repayment of actual, documented training expenses is assessed separately from a penalty; the label used in the contract is not decisive.
3. Under what conditions can training costs be claimed?
In the same decision, the Chamber set out the following principles:
- Since the employee becomes more qualified through training paid for by the employer, it is possible to agree that the employee will work for a certain period in return for the training.
- The working period undertaken in return for the training must be proportionate to the type and costs of the training.
- Costs of mandatory training that must be provided as occupational health and safety measures may not be claimed.
Court of Cassation, 22nd Civil Chamber, 16.01.2020, Docket 2017/26761, Decision 2020/518: The Chamber stated that it must be clarified whether the training was given for the employee’s professional development or for carrying out the business. If the training was for professional development, its costs may be claimed; if it related to carrying out the business, they may not. This decision concerned a bank employee; the criterion is assessed according to the specific case.
The reason for leaving also matters. In the contracts examined in Court of Cassation decisions, cost refunds were generally linked to the employee leaving without just cause or causing termination through their own fault. The relevant contract clause and the nature of the termination are assessed together.
4. Calculation and the effect of time worked
According to the 9th Civil Chamber, instead of the full training costs, a reduction should be made by establishing a ratio between the time the employee worked and the time they were required to work; the remaining amount is then awarded. If the employee worked the entire commitment period, training costs may not be claimed.
Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 07.09.2021, Docket 2020/8233, Decision 2021/8001: A second-pilot contract separately set out the reduction method to be applied on termination. The Chamber held that deducting a second time the amounts already withheld during the period worked was contrary to the contract, and reversed the decision. The decision was adopted by majority vote.
This decision shows that the calculation must follow the payment and reduction clauses in the contract. For amounts set in foreign currency, which exchange rate applies is also assessed according to the contract and the specific case.
5. Documenting the costs and proof
- The content and duration of the training and the competence it provides
- Invoices and proof of payment; only the portion of costs relating to the employee concerned
- For group training, the number of participants and the amount per person (22nd Civil Chamber, 16.01.2020)
- The undertaking or training agreement, with signature and date
- A breakdown of deductions made from wages
6. Checklist
For employees
- A copy of the training agreement or undertaking
- A calculation of the time worked after training
- Records of wage deductions
- The termination notice and correspondence showing the reason for leaving
For employers
- A clear contract clause distinguishing training costs from a penalty clause
- Training-specific costs documented per person
- A commitment period and reduction method proportionate to the training
- Keeping mandatory occupational health and safety training separate
7. Hypothetical examples
Hypothetical example 1: A pilot undertakes to work for three years in return for type-rating training and leaves after two years without just cause. The employer may claim the costs set in the contract, proportioned to the period not worked. Wage deductions already made are taken into account according to the calculation method in the contract.
Hypothetical example 2: Part of the training given to a cabin crew member consists of mandatory safety training. In a cost claim, this part must be separated from professional development training.
These examples are not based on real persons or files; the outcome depends on the contract and the specific circumstances.
8. Frequently asked questions
Are pilots subject to the Labour Law?
The Labour Law does not apply to air transport work. Pilots and cabin crew who take part in flights are, as a rule, subject to the Code of Obligations. Work at aviation ground facilities is subject to the Labour Law.
I worked the full commitment period; can costs still be claimed?
According to the Court of Cassation, if the full commitment period was worked, training costs may not be claimed.
Do I pay the full cost?
As a rule, no. A reduction is made in proportion to the time worked and the time required to be worked.
Are a penalty clause and training costs the same thing?
No. A penalty clause is a penalty for breach, which the judge reduces if excessive. Training costs are expenditure actually incurred.
Can the costs of mandatory training be claimed?
Costs of mandatory occupational health and safety training may not be claimed.
9. Sources
- Labour Law No. 4857 (Turkish): Art. 4
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Turkish): Arts. 179, 182
- Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, 08.06.2022, Docket 2022/6142, Decision 2022/7339
- Court of Cassation, 3rd Civil Chamber, 07.09.2021, Docket 2020/8233, Decision 2021/8001
- Court of Cassation, 22nd Civil Chamber, 16.01.2020, Docket 2017/26761, Decision 2020/518
- Decisions can be searched by reference on the Court of Cassation decision search system (Turkish).
This article provides general information and does not replace a review of the specific facts and documents. Current legislation and case-specific circumstances require separate assessment.