Learn how work accidents are regulated in Turkey, including the legal definition of a work accident, employer reporting duties, SGK benefits, employer liability, compensation claims, labor court procedure, and key legal remedies under Turkish law.
Work Accidents in Turkey
Work accidents in Turkey sit at the intersection of occupational health and safety law, social security law, labor law, and compensation law. The main legal framework includes Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, Labor Courts Law No. 7036, and the employer’s duty of protection under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098. For employers, this means a work accident is never just a safety incident. It may also trigger reporting duties, SGK consequences, labor-court litigation, damages claims, and, depending on the facts, broader legal exposure. For employees and their families, it means there may be more than one legal remedy after an accident, and those remedies do not all operate in the same way.
In Turkish law, work accidents are regulated through both a social security definition and an occupational safety definition. Under SGK’s current official explanation based on Law No. 5510, a work accident is an event that occurs in one of the situations listed in the statute and leaves the insured person physically or mentally disabled. Those situations include the employee being at the workplace, the accident occurring due to the work carried out by the employer, the employee being sent outside the workplace on duty, breastfeeding breaks for a female employee working under an employment contract, transportation to and from the place of work in a vehicle provided by the employer, and, for self-employed insured persons, events arising due to their own work. By contrast, Law No. 6331 defines a work accident more generally as an event occurring in the workplace or due to the execution of the work that causes death or renders bodily or mentally disabled.
This dual structure matters in practice. A single accident may simultaneously produce OHS consequences under Law No. 6331 and social insurance consequences under Law No. 5510. That is why a legally sound analysis should separate at least three questions: first, whether the event is a work accident for SGK purposes; second, whether the employer complied with prevention, supervision, and reporting duties; and third, what financial and procedural remedies the injured worker or the worker’s family may pursue.
1. The legal definition of a work accident in Turkey
From the social security perspective, SGK’s official 2025 explanation states that a work accident is an event occurring in one of the cases listed in Law No. 5510 that causes the insured person to become physically or mentally disabled. The same SGK source lists the classic statutory cases: being at the workplace, accidents arising from the work carried out by the employer, off-site assignments where the worker is away from the main job on duty, breastfeeding-break periods, employer-provided transportation, and, for self-employed insured persons, accidents arising from their own work. SGK also states that, for an incident to be treated as a work accident, the injured person must be insured, must have encountered an event, and must have become physically or mentally disabled because of that event.
From the occupational safety perspective, Law No. 6331 uses a shorter definition. In Article 3, it defines a work accident as an event occurring at the workplace or due to the conduct of the work, causing death or rendering the person physically or mentally disabled. This definition is important because it anchors the employer’s OHS obligations in a broad protection framework even when a specific SGK classification issue later arises.
The practical result is that Turkish law does not reduce work accidents to dramatic factory events only. Accidents during employer-provided transport, accidents during assigned off-site work, and accidents during a legally protected breastfeeding break may also qualify as work accidents for social security purposes. That broad reach is one reason employers must assess workplace risk beyond the factory floor or the immediate production line.
2. Employer prevention duties under Law No. 6331
The foundation of employer liability begins before the accident occurs. Article 4 of Law No. 6331 states that the employer must ensure workers’ health and safety in every aspect related to the work. The law requires the employer to take all necessary measures for protection, prevent occupational risks, provide information and training, monitor whether workplace safety measures are followed, eliminate nonconformities, carry out or have carried out risk assessments, and take the worker’s health and safety suitability into account when assigning tasks. The same article also states that receiving services from outside specialists or institutions does not remove the employer’s responsibilities, and that the cost of OHS measures may not be shifted to workers.
Law No. 6331 is also built on prevention principles. Article 5 requires avoiding risks, evaluating unavoidable risks, combating risks at the source, adapting work to the person, adapting to technical progress, replacing dangerous conditions with less dangerous ones, creating a coherent prevention policy, prioritizing collective protective measures over individual ones, and giving appropriate instructions to workers. These principles matter because in a work-accident lawsuit or administrative inspection, the central issue is often not whether the employer had a policy document, but whether the employer actually organized the work in accordance with this prevention logic.
One of the most concrete employer obligations is risk assessment. Article 10 of Law No. 6331 requires the employer to perform or have performed a risk assessment, taking into account factors such as work equipment, materials used, workplace organization, and workers who need special protection. The Ministry’s official FAQ also states that all workplaces within the scope of the law, in both the public and private sectors, must have risk assessment conducted. In very hazardous workplaces, mining, metal, construction, hazardous-chemical workplaces, and workplaces with major industrial accident risk, Article 25 further provides that the absence of a risk assessment may itself become a ground for stopping work.
In a work accident file, these prevention duties are not abstract. They are often the bridge between the accident and employer liability. As a matter of legal inference from Article 4 of Law No. 6331 and Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, an employer that fails to organize work safely, fails to assess risks, or fails to implement necessary measures may face private-law damages claims in addition to public-law and SGK consequences. Article 417 specifically states that the employer must protect and respect the worker’s personality in the service relationship and ensure a workplace order consistent with good faith.
3. Employer reporting and recordkeeping duties after a work accident
After an accident occurs, the employer’s duties continue immediately. SGK’s official 2025 page states that, for employees working under an employment contract, the employer must report the work accident to the law enforcement authorities immediately and to SGK within three working days from the date of the accident. This is one of the most important practical compliance rules in Turkish work-accident law.
Law No. 6331 adds a separate but parallel duty. Article 14 requires the employer to keep records of all work accidents and occupational diseases, carry out the necessary inquiries, and prepare reports. It also requires investigation and reporting of incidents that did not cause injury or death but had the potential to damage workers, the workplace, or equipment. The same article states that the employer must notify SGK of work accidents within three working days after the accident, and must notify SGK of occupational diseases within three working days after learning of them from the health service provider or workplace physician.
These reporting rules are legally important for several reasons. First, they affect the employee’s access to social insurance benefits. Second, they create documentary evidence about when the employer became aware of the accident and how it reacted. Third, they are part of the employer’s OHS compliance history, which may later matter in compensation litigation or inspection. Turkish law therefore treats post-accident reporting as a substantive legal duty, not as a mere administrative afterthought.
4. SGK benefits after a work accident
A work accident in Turkey may trigger social insurance benefits independently of the worker’s private-law damages claim against the employer. SGK’s official “Rights Granted to Workers” page states that, within the short-term insurance branches, workers may receive temporary incapacity allowance, permanent incapacity income, or death income. That page lists these benefits in general social-insurance language, while SGK’s specific work-accident pages explain how they function in work-accident cases.
Temporary incapacity allowance
SGK’s official work-accident content explains that temporary incapacity benefits are tied to work-accident and occupational-disease situations. SGK’s meslek hastalığı page, which addresses the same short-term insurance branch, states that temporary incapacity allowance is paid for every day of incapacity when there is a rest report issued by an authorized physician or health board, and that in work-accident or occupational-disease cases the amount is generally half of daily earnings for inpatient treatment and two-thirds of daily earnings for outpatient treatment.
Permanent incapacity income
SGK’s 2025 work-accident page states that permanent incapacity income is granted where, due to a work accident or occupational disease, the SGK health board determines on the basis of authorized health-board reports that the insured’s occupational earning power has decreased by at least 10%. SGK also explains the basic formulas: for full incapacity, the formula is daily earnings × 30 × 70%; for partial incapacity, the same formula is multiplied by the incapacity degree. The same page states that the income starts from the beginning of the month following the end of temporary incapacity, or, if permanent incapacity existed directly, from the month following the date of the relevant report.
Death income for survivors
If the worker dies because of a work accident, SGK’s official death-income page states that the worker’s beneficiaries may receive death income. SGK also states that, for death income arising from a work accident or occupational disease, there is no minimum insurance period, age, or premium-day requirement; even if the person dies on the first day of insured work as a result of a work accident, beneficiaries may still receive death income.
These SGK remedies are critical, but they are not always the whole picture. Social insurance benefits and private-law compensation claims serve different functions. The first is the statutory social-insurance response of the system; the second concerns employer liability and damages. In Turkish practice, both layers may need to be analyzed together in a serious work-accident file.
5. Employer liability and damages claims
Employer liability in work-accident cases is closely linked to the duty of protection. Article 4 of Law No. 6331 places a broad duty on employers to ensure safety and health in every aspect related to work, and Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations requires the employer to protect and respect the worker’s personality and maintain a workplace order consistent with good faith. Read together, these provisions provide the legal basis for arguing that failure to prevent foreseeable occupational risk can give rise to employer liability.
In practical terms, a work-accident case may therefore involve at least two financial tracks. One is the SGK track, where the worker or the worker’s family seeks statutory benefits such as temporary incapacity allowance, permanent incapacity income, or death income. The other is the employer-liability track, where material and moral damages may be pursued if the accident is connected to a breach of the employer’s legal duties of prevention, supervision, organization, or protection. The fact that Law No. 7036 expressly excludes material and moral compensation claims arising from work accidents from mandatory mediation reinforces that Turkish law treats these claims as a distinct litigation category.
Because the user asked for legal remedies, one more procedural distinction matters. If the dispute is against SGK under social security legislation, Article 4 of Law No. 7036 states that application to SGK is generally mandatory before filing suit, except for certain service-determination claims. But Article 3(3) of the same law clearly states that material and moral compensation claims arising from work accidents and occupational diseases are not subject to mandatory mediation. So, the pre-suit path depends on the legal target of the claim: SGK-based disputes and employer damages suits do not follow exactly the same route.
6. Labor court jurisdiction and venue
Labor Courts Law No. 7036 provides the procedural home for these disputes. Article 5 states that labor courts hear all legal disputes arising from the employment relationship between workers and employers or their representatives, whether based on contract or statute, as well as social-security disputes where SGK is a party, subject to the statutory exceptions. That broad jurisdictional rule is the reason work-accident compensation disputes against employers are generally litigated in labor courts.
Venue is also specifically regulated. Article 6 of Law No. 7036 states that, in work-accident compensation lawsuits, the competent court may be the court at the place where the accident or the damage occurred, or the court at the injured worker’s domicile, in addition to the ordinary venue rules. This is a very practical rule for injured workers and families because it broadens venue options instead of restricting them to the defendant employer’s location alone.
7. The worker’s right to abstain from dangerous work and terminate if measures are not taken
Turkish law also recognizes preventive remedies before the next accident occurs. Article 13 of Law No. 6331 states that workers facing a serious and imminent danger may apply to the OHS committee, or directly to the employer where there is no committee, and request that the danger be identified and necessary measures be decided upon. If the request is accepted, the worker may abstain from work until the measures are taken, while preserving wages and other legal and contractual rights. In unavoidable danger, workers may leave the workplace or dangerous area immediately without being disadvantaged. Article 13 also states that workers employed under an employment contract may terminate their contracts under the applicable legal rules if, despite their request, necessary measures are still not taken.
This is important in work-accident law because it shows that the legal system is not only reactive. Turkish law does not force workers to wait for actual bodily harm before asserting a safety right. Where there is serious and imminent danger, the worker may stop working lawfully and, if the employer still fails to act, may even move toward termination under the relevant labor-law framework.
8. Health surveillance, training, and accident prevention
Work accidents are also tied to broader preventive duties that often matter later in litigation. Article 15 of Law No. 6331 requires employers to provide health surveillance appropriate to workplace risks and to ensure medical examination at entry, job change, return after repeated absence following a work accident or occupational disease if requested, and periodic intervals depending on the nature of the work and hazard class. Article 17 requires employers to provide adequate OHS training at recruitment, job change, equipment change, and when new technology is introduced, and to repeat training when necessary. The time spent in training counts as working time, and if it exceeds weekly hours it counts as overtime.
These provisions matter because in a work-accident file, courts and experts often examine whether the accident was tied to failures in training, task allocation, worker suitability, or health surveillance. Turkish law specifically requires employers to consider whether the worker is suitable for the assigned task and to provide risk-based training and medical monitoring. So a serious work accident may expose not only a one-day operational failure, but a longer chain of non-compliance.
9. Main employer–subcontractor and multi-employer settings
Many Turkish work accidents occur in layered workplaces such as construction sites, industrial sites, logistics facilities, and outsourced operations. Law No. 6331 addresses this through coordination rules. Article 23 requires employers in the same work environment to cooperate on OHS implementation, coordinate to prevent occupational risks, protect against them, and inform one another and worker representatives about such risks. Article 22 also contains coordination rules for OHS committees in main employer–subcontractor settings where the workplace meets the committee threshold.
This is legally significant because an accident in a subcontracted or shared workplace is rarely a purely isolated single-employer story. Turkish law expects coordination, information-sharing, and preventive cooperation. As a result, a serious work-accident file often requires careful analysis of which entity controlled which risk, who was obliged to coordinate, and whether the main employer and subcontractor fulfilled their overlapping OHS duties.
10. Why work accidents create both public-law and private-law risk
A work accident in Turkey is legally multi-layered. On the public-law side, there are reporting duties, inspections, administrative fines, and, in very serious situations, possible work-stoppage consequences under Article 25 of Law No. 6331, especially where life-threatening danger or absence of risk assessment exists in certain high-risk sectors. On the private-law side, there are SGK benefits and potential employer damages claims. On the procedural side, there are different rules for mediation and pre-suit SGK application depending on the type of claim.
That is why employers should not treat accident response as a narrow HR or HSE function only. Turkish law expects the employer to manage the event as a legal event: preserve evidence, report in time, investigate, review risk assessments, examine training and supervision gaps, and assess exposure on both the SGK side and the employer-liability side. Employees and families, likewise, should not assume that one benefit route automatically exhausts all possible rights.
Conclusion
Work accidents in Turkey are regulated through a combined system of occupational safety duties, social insurance protection, and compensation law. SGK’s framework under Law No. 5510 determines whether an event counts as a work accident for social insurance purposes and what benefits may follow, including temporary incapacity allowance, permanent incapacity income, and death income for beneficiaries. Law No. 6331, meanwhile, imposes the employer’s core duties of prevention, risk assessment, training, supervision, health surveillance, accident reporting, and emergency response. Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations reinforces the employer’s protective duty within the service relationship.
For employers, the main lesson is that work-accident liability in Turkey begins before the accident with lawful workplace organization and continues after the accident through timely reporting, investigation, and compliance correction. For employees and families, the key lesson is that a work accident may generate multiple remedies and multiple procedures: SGK benefits, employer damages claims, labor-court litigation, and, in social-security disputes against SGK, a pre-suit application route. In Turkish practice, the strongest work-accident cases are usually the ones where the legal analysis clearly separates these tracks and then uses them together, rather than confusing them into a single undifferentiated claim
Yanıt yok