An industrial company with more than a thousand workers hands out an RFID-based wearable tracker, citing occupational safety. The device follows location, reports lifting and turning motions, and vibrates with an alert to the system when a worker stands still for ten minutes. With no secure place to leave it at the plant, workers carry it home after hours. The union files a declaratory action, and the file produces what appears to be Türkiye’s first Court of Cassation ruling on tracking workers through wearables.
Three benches, three registers
The first instance court found the practice contrary to workplace peace: witness testimony showed physical and psychological harm, and the same safety goal could be met with team leads, shift supervisors and cameras. The regional court affirmed with an emphasis on human rights. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (22 February 2024, File No. 2024/1311, Decision No. 2024/3381) then reversed, not on the merits but for incomplete examination: the file contained no expert findings on how the device actually worked. The Chamber ordered a panel of an engineer, an occupational health and safety expert, a sector specialist and a physician to establish beyond doubt the device’s working method, the data it records, the vibration frequency, whether it stays active outside working hours, whether carrying it is compulsory, and its health effects; the courts must then assess whether explicit consent was required and, if consent was taken, place the signed forms in the file. The dissent went further: the ten-minute alerts, the reports kept on warned workers and workers moving every ten minutes just to avoid triggering the system were already proven by testimony, and the practice already failed proportionality.
The ruling does not stand alone
The reversal looks technical, but the message is plain: these technologies will now be argued with device-level evidence, not general assurances. The data protection authority’s line points the same way. The principle decision on biometric attendance tracking holds that the power imbalance in employment makes explicit consent an unsafe basis on its own, and the workplace camera announcement treats performance and discipline monitoring as illegitimate purposes for surveillance. Read together, continuous monitoring for productivity and control tends to lose against employee rights even where the employer’s interest is real.
Design questions for builders and buyers
| Question | What a court will look for |
|---|---|
| Is the purpose really safety? | Fall detection and performance reporting in the same device weakens the case |
| Is there a less intrusive route? | Whether cameras, floor supervisors or zone sensors were considered |
| What happens off shift? | Whether the device switches off and can be left at the workplace |
| Consent or legitimate interest? | Consent’s freedom is questioned in employment; the basis and a DPIA must be documented |
These questions are product requirements as much as employer duties. If off-shift shutdown, data minimisation and role-based access are not written into the product from the start, the employer buying it becomes the defendant in the next case. We covered the wider legal frame of employee monitoring in our KVKK and automated decisions piece.
Does the reversal mean the employer won?
No. The Court did not bless the practice; it reversed because the device’s technical reality had not been established by experts. The case will be reheard on concrete findings, and the dissent’s proportionality analysis is the claimant’s strongest card in that round.
Does a signed consent form solve the problem?
Not by itself. The authority’s biometrics reasoning travels here: dependence in the employment relationship weakens the assumption that consent is freely given. The sound structure narrows the purpose, documents why less intrusive alternatives fall short, and does not rest the lawful basis on consent alone.
Where to start
If wearable tracking exists in your workplace or your product, prepare three documents: a technical note on what data the device processes, how often and at which hours; a proportionality assessment showing why alternatives were insufficient; and an operating instruction establishing off-shift shutdown and device hand-in. Have your own answers ready for the list the Court of Cassation will hand the experts.
Author
If this is on your desk
Templates and checklists are free in the Founder Academy; for a specific situation, book a 30-minute intro call.
Founder AcademyBook an intro callMore from Vircon Insights
Türkiye's First Official RWA Move: The Digital Precious Metals Communiqué Opens a Third Lane for Tokenization
August 11, 2026Türkiye's 12th Judicial Package Through a Technology Lens: The Full Map of Law No. 7589
August 10, 2026Türkiye Raises the Fintech Capital Bar Again: New Minimum Equity Floors for Payment and E-Money Institutions
August 7, 2026Türkiye's DPA Governs by Principle Decision: What the Accident Data and Guest ID Rulings Tell Product Teams
August 5, 2026Türkiye Writes Gaming into Law No. 5651: A Guide to the New Platform Regime
August 4, 2026From the ICTA to the Cybersecurity Presidency: Türkiye's New Digital Authority Map and the Two-Hour Rule
August 4, 2026Related Practice Areas
US Company Formations & Flip-Ups
Delaware C-Corp, flip-up structures, SAFE/convertible notes, 83(b).
View service →Employment Law
Employment contracts, ESOP, termination, non-compete, work permits.
View service →Privacy & Cybersecurity
KVKK and GDPR compliance, breach response, cybersecurity governance.
View service →