Part-Time Work in Turkey: Pay, Equal Treatment and Comparable Employees

Short answer: Under Article 13 of Turkish Labor Law No. 4857, part-time work is based on a normal weekly working time that is substantially shorter than that of a comparable full-time employee performing the same or similar work. A part-time employee should not be treated less favorably merely because the contract is part-time unless there is a reason justifying the distinction, while wages and divisible monetary benefits are paid proportionally to working time.

Legal roadmap: For the broader employment-law framework, see our Employment Law Services page and the Istanbul Employment Law guide. This article deliberately focuses on the narrow statutory framework supported by Articles 5 and 13 of Labor Law No. 4857: comparable employees, equal treatment, proportional monetary benefits, and requests to move between part-time and full-time work.

What Is Part-Time Work Under Turkish Labor Law?

Article 13 does not define a part-time employment contract by attaching it to one universal daily or weekly number of hours. Instead, the statutory definition is comparative. The employee's normal weekly working time is considered in relation to the normal weekly working time of a comparable full-time employee. Where the former is substantially shorter, the arrangement falls within the statutory concept of part-time work.

This comparison matters because labels alone do not determine the legal character of the relationship. Calling a contract “part time” does not replace the need to examine the working-time arrangement and the appropriate full-time comparator. Conversely, a contract should not be assessed solely by reference to an abstract numerical threshold when the statutory provision being discussed uses a comparative test.

For that reason, this article does not present a fixed “part-time equals X hours” formula. The first four paragraphs of Article 13, which form the source scope for this guide, focus on a substantially shorter normal weekly working time in comparison with full-time work rather than a single numerical cut-off.

Who Is the Comparable Full-Time Employee?

The concept of a comparable employee is central to Article 13. The primary comparator is a full-time employee in the same workplace who performs the same or similar work. If no such employee exists in that workplace, the comparison may be made with a full-time employee performing the same or similar work in a workplace that meets the relevant conditions within the same branch of activity.

This prevents the analysis from becoming arbitrary. Two employees do not become comparators merely because they work for the same employer. The comparison must be anchored in the same or similar work. Job content, duties and the actual work performed therefore matter when identifying the proper reference point.

The comparator also provides the baseline for examining proportional pay and divisible monetary benefits. A meaningful analysis should therefore identify the relevant full-time working arrangement before asking whether the part-time employee has received proportionate monetary benefits or has been treated differently because of part-time status.

Can a Part-Time Employee Be Treated Differently?

Labor Law No. 4857 contains a general equal-treatment principle and Article 13 applies a specific rule to part-time work. A part-time employee should not be subjected to different treatment compared with a comparable full-time employee merely because the employment contract is part-time, unless there is a reason that justifies the distinction.

This does not mean that every outcome for a part-time and full-time employee must be numerically identical. Article 13 itself distinguishes between unjustified different treatment and proportionality. Wages and divisible monetary benefits may be proportioned to working time. The statutory model therefore combines equal treatment with proportionate calculation rather than treating those principles as opposites.

When reviewing a workplace practice, the key questions are why the difference exists, whether it is based solely on part-time status, whether there is an objective reason linked to the work or benefit in question, and whether the benefit is one that Article 13 treats as divisible and monetary. A general disadvantage imposed automatically on all part-time employees simply because they are part-time requires particularly careful legal review.

How Are Wages and Divisible Monetary Benefits Treated?

Article 13 states that a part-time employee's wages and divisible monetary benefits are paid proportionally to the time worked compared with the comparable full-time employee. The wording is important. The proportionality rule concerns monetary benefits that are divisible. It does not support a blanket statement that every right or workplace benefit must automatically be reduced in the same proportion.

A sound review therefore begins by identifying the full-time comparator and the normal working time used for the comparison. The next step is to identify the nature of the payment or benefit. If it is monetary and genuinely divisible, working-time proportionality is part of the statutory framework. If its nature is different, a separate assessment may be required rather than assuming that the same mathematical reduction applies.

This distinction matters both for employers designing compensation structures and for employees reviewing payslips and contract terms. The word “part-time” alone is not a complete legal explanation for every difference in compensation. At the same time, proportionality for divisible monetary benefits is not discrimination; it is expressly built into the statutory model.

Equal Treatment and Proportionality Are Not the Same Thing

A common misunderstanding is to treat equal treatment as a requirement that every employee receive the same monetary amount regardless of working time. Article 13 takes a more precise approach. Equal treatment protects the part-time employee against less favorable treatment that rests merely on part-time status without a justification. Proportionality addresses the amount of wages and divisible monetary benefits by reference to working time.

A practical legal analysis can therefore be structured in three stages. First, identify the correct comparable full-time employee. Second, identify the exact difference in treatment, payment or benefit. Third, determine whether the item is a divisible monetary benefit and whether the difference reflects working-time proportionality or an unrelated disadvantage. Keeping those questions separate reduces the risk of confusing lawful proportionality with unjustified differential treatment.

Requests to Move Between Part-Time and Full-Time Work

Article 13 also addresses movement between working-time arrangements. Where a vacancy suitable for an employee's qualifications exists, requests to move from part-time to full-time work or from full-time to part-time work are to be taken into consideration by the employer. The provision also requires vacant positions to be announced in a timely manner.

This does not mean that every request creates an automatic entitlement to a transfer. The statutory wording is tied to suitable vacancies and employee qualifications, and it requires the employer to consider the request. A careful workplace process should therefore record available positions, the qualifications relevant to those positions, and the way transition requests are evaluated.

The rule works in both directions. It is not limited to part-time employees seeking full-time work. A full-time employee may also request a move to part-time work where the statutory conditions discussed here are relevant. Other special legal regimes that may govern particular forms of part-time work are outside the scope of this article.

A Practical Checklist for Employers

Within the narrow framework of Articles 5 and 13, many disputes can be avoided by documenting the comparison rather than relying on labels. Employers can ask the following questions when setting up or reviewing part-time work:

• Who performs the same or similar work on a full-time basis in the workplace?
• If no such employee exists, what is the appropriate comparator within the same branch of activity?
• What normal weekly working time is used for the comparison?
• If the part-time employee is treated differently, what is the reason for that distinction?
• Which monetary benefits are divisible and how is working-time proportionality calculated?
• Are suitable vacancies communicated to employees in a timely manner?
• How are requests to move between part-time and full-time work recorded and considered?

Clear records are useful because a later dispute often turns on the basis of the comparison. A transparent record of duties, working time, the comparator and the nature of monetary benefits is more reliable than a generic policy stating only that “part-time employees receive proportionate rights.”

A Practical Checklist for Employees

Employees can approach the same issue by comparing their actual work with the relevant full-time arrangement rather than relying on general assumptions about “part-time rights.” Useful questions include:

• What normal weekly working time is stated in the contract and applied in practice?
• Is there a full-time employee performing the same or similar work?
• How have wages and other divisible monetary benefits been proportioned?
• Does a disadvantage appear to arise solely because the contract is part-time?
• If a change to full-time work is requested, is there a suitable vacancy?
• Are vacancies being announced in a way that allows employees to know about them?

These questions do not determine the outcome of a dispute on their own. They help identify the facts that matter under Article 13. Contract terms, actual duties, payroll records and workplace practices may all need to be reviewed together in a concrete case.

Common Misunderstandings About Part-Time Work

“Part-time work always means fewer than a fixed number of hours.”

The statutory provision examined here does not use one fixed numerical threshold. Article 13 defines the arrangement by comparison with the normal weekly working time of a comparable full-time employee. Technical thresholds arising under other rules are outside the source scope of this guide.

“A part-time employee can automatically receive fewer rights in every respect.”

That is too broad. A part-time employee should not be treated differently merely because the contract is part-time unless a reason justifies the distinction. Article 13 separately allows proportional payment of wages and divisible monetary benefits according to working time.

“Equal treatment means everyone must receive the same amount of money.”

Equal treatment and proportional calculation address different questions. The statute protects against unjustified treatment based solely on part-time status while allowing working-time proportionality for divisible monetary benefits.

“A request to become full-time must always be accepted.”

Article 13 requires transition requests to be taken into consideration when a suitable vacancy exists and also addresses timely announcement of vacancies. It does not state that every request automatically results in a transfer.

Practical Examples

Example 1: A full-time comparator exists in the same workplace

Suppose two employees perform the same role and one works full-time while the other's normal weekly working time is substantially shorter. The full-time employee may serve as the comparator under Article 13. The part-time employee's wages and divisible monetary benefits can then be examined on a working-time proportional basis, while unfavorable treatment that rests only on part-time status requires a separate justification.

Example 2: No full-time comparator exists in the workplace

If nobody in the workplace performs the same or similar work on a full-time basis, the statutory comparison does not simply disappear. Article 13 directs the analysis toward a full-time employee performing the same or similar work in a suitable workplace in the same branch of activity. This provides a reference point for the equal-treatment and proportionality analysis.

Example 3: A part-time employee wants to move to full-time work

If a suitable full-time vacancy exists, the employee may make a transition request. The employer is expected to take such requests into consideration and to announce vacant positions in a timely manner. The existence of a vacancy and the employee's qualifications remain part of the assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a part-time employment contract in Turkey?

For the purposes of Article 13, it is an employment contract in which the employee's normal weekly working time is set substantially shorter than that of a comparable full-time employee.

Does Article 13 set one fixed number of hours for part-time work?

No fixed numerical threshold appears in the first four paragraphs of Article 13 examined in this guide. The provision uses a comparison with the normal weekly working time of a comparable full-time employee.

How is a comparable employee identified?

The primary comparator is a full-time employee in the same workplace performing the same or similar work. If none exists, a full-time employee performing the same or similar work in a suitable workplace in the same branch of activity is considered.

Can a part-time employee be paid less than a full-time employee?

Wages and divisible monetary benefits may be paid proportionally to working time compared with the full-time comparator. However, an employee should not be treated less favorably merely because the contract is part-time without a reason justifying the distinction.

Are all benefits automatically reduced proportionally?

No. Article 13 specifically refers to wages and monetary benefits that are divisible. The nature and source of a particular benefit may require separate examination rather than an automatic across-the-board reduction.

Can a part-time employee ask to become full-time?

Yes. Article 13 provides that requests to move from part-time to full-time work, and vice versa, are to be taken into consideration when a suitable vacancy exists.

Must vacancies be announced?

Article 13 includes a rule that vacant positions are to be announced in a timely manner, supporting the statutory mechanism for employees seeking a change in working-time arrangement.

Does this article cover social-security days, annual leave or special parental part-time rights?

No. Those subjects may depend on additional or different legal rules. This guide is intentionally limited to the verified source scope of Articles 5 and 13: equal treatment, comparable employees, proportional monetary benefits and transition requests.

Conclusion

The legal analysis of part-time work under Turkish Labor Law should not be reduced to a single question about the number of hours worked. Article 13 uses a comparative structure: identify the comparable full-time employee, examine whether part-time status alone has produced unfavorable treatment, apply proportionality to wages and divisible monetary benefits, and consider requests to move between working-time arrangements where suitable vacancies exist. Contracts, actual duties, working-time records and the nature of each monetary benefit should therefore be examined together.

Related resources: Employment Law Services · Istanbul Employment Law