Is Turkey’s Mandatory Mediation Law Good for Employees?
Is mandatory mediation in the civil courts a good idea or bad policy? That is exactly the question that the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution was recently asked to consider by academic researchers from the Republic of Turkey.
Recently, three international researchers convened a virtual session with Scheinman faculty and students, along with a Canadian labor arbitrator Chris Albertyn, and former Federal Mediation Conciliation Service mediator (JC Gonzalez). The Scheinman participants included Professor Dionne Pohler, Associate Director of the Scheinman Institute and Adjunct Instructor Richard Fincher, a member of the Scheinman Institute Board of Advisors. ILR students observed the discussion.
The official project title was “Mediation in Individual Labor Disputes: An analysis of legal practice and the experience of employees and mediators in Ankara and Bursa.” The central research question was “to what extent does the mandatory mediation mechanism in Turkey achieve its intended legal and policy goals, and how is it perceived and experienced by the parties involved?
During the discussion, the lead academic researcher was Cagla Erogan, from the Ankara University Faculty of Law, joined by researcher Orhan Emre Konuralp (discussing the scope of mandatory mediation and its constitutionality), and Project Leader Duygu Hatipoğlu Aydın, (explaining the mediator and employee experience).
Mediation is often discussed as a voluntary process—one that parties choose because
it offers flexibility, informality, and the possibility of faster resolution. But in Turkey, mediation in individual labor disputes is no longer optional. Since 2018, employees and employers have been legally required to attempt mediation before filing a labor lawsuit.
Turkey’s Labor Courts introduced mediation as a procedural condition for most individual employment disputes. In practical terms, this means that an employee cannot bring a claim to court, such as for unpaid wages or severance, unless they first go through mediation. The case can only proceed to litigation if mediation fails.
The reform was intended to reduce pressure on labor courts and shorten the time it takes to resolve disputes. As such, mediation was expected to be a quicker, less formal step that could resolve cases before they reached a judge.
An interdisciplinary research project funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) examined how a mandatory mediation system actually works in practice, focusing on labor disputes in Ankara and Bursa. The project brought together scholars of labor law, civil procedure, sociology, and labor economics to study both the legal framework and the lived experiences of employees and mediators.
The official project title was “Mediation in Individual Labor Disputes: An analysis of legal practice and the experience of employees and mediators in Ankara and Bursa.” The central research question was “to what extent does the mandatory mediation mechanism in Turkey achieve its intended legal and policy goals, and how is it perceived and experienced by the parties involved?
The research found indicates (one or other) that when mandatory mediation is introduced, court caseloads have not become consistently reduced, and dispute timelines have not been shortened. In fact, in some cases, mediation adds an additional procedural step without resolving the underlying conflict, meaning disputes continue into litigation anyway. Secondly, the study highlights significant power imbalances between employees and employers. Employees often enter mediation under financial pressure, with limited legal knowledge, and with a strong incentive to settle quickly. While many employees reported being “satisfied” with mediation, this satisfaction was frequently tied to avoiding court rather than to receiving their full legal entitlements. Importantly, satisfaction varied depending on factors such as legal awareness, union membership, and gender, suggesting that outcomes are not experienced evenly across workers. Thirdly, the research raises concerns about mediator neutrality and trust. Because mediators are legal professionals selected within a system where employers may be repeat users of mediation, employees do not always perceive the process as balanced.
The discussion of this important research project was was a great opportunity to connect with scholars, students and practitioners from Turkey, the U.S. and Canada to discuss similarities and differences in the use of mandatory mediation across these countries, as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of compulsory mediation in general.”, stated Professor Pohler.
