The wage and social security consequences of work in a penal enforcement institution depend on the legal nature of the work performed. Production in a prison workshop (işyurdu), assignment to in-facility services, work outside the institution and work for public benefit are not subject to the same regime. Without drawing this distinction, one cannot say that “everyone who works in prison receives the minimum wage,” that “all working days count toward retirement,” or that “all work inside the institution is unpaid.”
A proper review proceeds from the assignment decision, the type of work, whether the person is a convicted person or a pretrial detainee, the applicable daily rate decision, the days actually worked and the social insurance declarations. That work forms part of enforcement does not remove health and safety obligations. The route of application, however, must also be chosen according to the subject of the dispute: the institution’s work assignment and the Social Security Institution’s (SGK) insurance determination are not always examined in the same judicial route.
Why the legal nature of the work is decisive
Production in prison workshops and vocational training
Article 29 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Kanun) regulates the employment of convicted persons whose health permits work in prison workshops. The purpose of the provision is not only production. Learning a trade or craft, building work habits and supporting life after release are also important. Whether the person is willing, the resources of the institution and the suitability of the person for the work are assessed together.[2] For a separate assessment, the article on conditions for conditional release may be read.
This framework does not create an unconditional right to be assigned to any particular job or on any particular date. Even so, decisions on acceptance to work, dismissal or a change of duties must rest on concrete and lawful grounds. An assignment to work that is incompatible with the person’s health cannot be explained by production needs alone.
In-facility service and prison workshop duty
A distinction exists between taking on the daily services of the institution, such as cleaning, meal distribution or similar tasks, and production within a prison workshop. Article 31 of Law No. 5275 regulates assignment to in-facility services and prohibits employing a convicted person on the personal affairs of institutional staff.[2]
The everyday name of a job does not by itself show its legal status. For example, for a person working in meal service, the unit on whose behalf they were assigned, the decision under which the assignment was made and the payment regime must be identified. Because of the conditional payment rule in Article 32 of the Regulation on Prison Workshops (İşyurtları Yönetmeliği), it cannot be said that all in-facility services are unpaid in every case. On the other hand, such an assignment does not automatically subject the person to all the provisions on prison workshops.[5]
Work outside the institution
Article 30 of Law No. 5275 regulates the conditions and the various practices of work outside the institution. For those held in an open penal enforcement institution and for other convicted persons in the conditions specified by law, the workplace, supervision and relationship with the employer are assessed separately.
The fifth paragraph of the same article, which allows willing convicted persons in open institutions to be employed at certain public bodies with overnight accommodation, is a special provision. The wage rule in that context cannot be generalised to every job outside the institution. The seventh paragraph of the same article refers, for social security purposes, to Article 5(1)(a) of Law No. 5510. That the workplace lies outside the prison walls does not by itself show that the person is under an ordinary employment contract or under full old-age insurance.[2] [3] For more on this subject, the article on leave for convicted persons may also be read.
Special safeguards for pretrial detainees and children
Can a pretrial detainee be compelled to work?
Under Article 114 of Law No. 5275, pretrial detainees cannot be compelled to work. If they work voluntarily, the provisions on the work and pay of convicted persons apply to them. The status of a convicted person under enforcement and the status of a pretrial detainee, whose detention is not based on a final conviction, are kept apart at this point.[2]
Voluntary work does not mean that the person must accept a task incompatible with health or endure problems that arise during the work. A health and safety need that emerges after the initial voluntary acceptance must be assessed separately. A request for a change of duties should explain which part of the work causes which health problem.
Children’s work is limited to educational purposes
For children in detention, the purpose of vocational training and the right to education are decisive. Special prohibitions on children and young convicted persons who continue formal education during the school year must also be observed. In in-facility services, a children’s order limited to their own living and education areas cannot be interpreted in the same way as an assignment of adults.[2] For details, see the article on education and sitting exams in prison.
Working hours, the nature of the task and its effect on the education programme must be considered together. Calling an activity “vocational training” does not by itself make it lawful if it in fact takes the person away from education or is unsuitable from a health standpoint.
How to review wages, daily rates and payroll
There is no single wage schedule for every job
Article 32 of Law No. 5275 provides for payment of wages to working convicted persons and their access to social rights. Under the Regulation on Prison Workshops, however, these take concrete form through daily rates (gündelik), the relevant decisions and work categories. The distinctions between trainee, apprentice, journeyman and master, the work performed and the periodic decision in force may all be important.[2] [5]
A current amount should not be stated as an exact figure without seeing the decision of the Prison Workshops Authority Supreme Board (İşyurtları Kurumu Yüksek Kurulu) for the relevant period. A daily rate found online for the previous year cannot be applied automatically to a new period. The right questions in a dispute are: which decision was applied, in which category the person was placed, whether that category matches the work actually performed, and what the effective date of the decision is.
Read the attendance record, payroll and custody account together
The attendance record (puantaj) shows the days actually worked. The payroll (bordro) shows the calculation. The custody account (emanet hesabı) shows the transfer of the payment that has accrued. These records cannot be read in isolation: concluding from the account balance alone that wages were paid in full or in part is not sound. The provisions on payment and on the cost of meals and board (iaşe bedeli) in Article 33 of the Regulation must also be observed.[5]
For example, in a hypothetical dispute where a person says they worked twenty-two days but the payroll shows twenty days, first determine the dates to which the two-day difference relates. Compare the task list, the production record, the attendance record and any leave or health records. Only then is the calculation made, using the correct daily rate and any legal basis for deductions. Non-payment for a day not worked and a working day that was not recorded are different problems.
Overtime, bonuses and profit share are separate items
The normal daily rate, overtime pay, production bonus and profit share (kâr payı) do not replace one another. Article 8 of Law No. 4301 and the related regulatory provisions require that these payments be assessed under their own conditions. The existence of one item does not mean that a person automatically acquires a right to all the others.[5] [10]
Deductions based on low production also require review of their reasons and procedure. Under the assessments in Articles 36–38 of the Regulation, safeguards such as taking the person’s explanation and notifying the decision must not be disregarded. A health problem, a new start in the job or a fault in the production equipment is not the same thing as a fault attributable to the person. A low production record alone does not show that each deduction is lawful.
Working hours and overtime records
Article 25 of the Regulation on Prison Workshops sets the daily working time at no less than one hour and no more than seven and a half hours within its scope of application, and the weekly working time at forty-five hours. Limits for overtime are also set: three hours per day, ninety days per year and two hundred and seventy hours per year. These rules should not be transferred automatically to different types of work without first examining their scope.[5]
The total time spent in the penal enforcement institution must not be confused with the actual working time. The start and end of the duty, break periods and the instruction under which overtime was worked must be identified. Regular records make it possible to review both pay and health.
Does work in prison count toward retirement?
The distinction between short-term insurance and retirement
Article 5(1)(a) of Law No. 5510 provides that convicted persons and detainees who work in workshops, facilities and similar units within penal enforcement institutions and remand centres, although not employed under an employment contract, are covered by work-accident, occupational-disease and maternity insurance. Within the scope set out in that provision, such persons are treated as insured under Article 4(1)(a).[3]
This reference does not mean, however, that all long-term insurance branches have been paid or that all working days have been counted toward the number of days used for the old-age pension. Short-term insurance protection is separate from disability, old-age and death insurance. The concrete situation must be examined through the type of notification and the premium branches shown in the service record.
If the person has continuing insurance from another status, an optional insurance opportunity or a specific right to buy back service time (borçlanma), the conditions for these are assessed separately. Having worked in prison does not, on its own, create a general right to buy back service time.
Work outside the institution does not change insurance by itself
Article 30(7) of Law No. 5275 also refers to Article 5(1)(a) of Law No. 5510 for work outside the institution, and provides that the premiums are paid by the institutions and organisations that employ the person. The claim “I worked outside the institution, so all periods must count toward retirement” therefore cannot be made on the basis of the place of work alone.[2]
| Work or record | Result that cannot be drawn automatically |
|---|---|
| Work in a prison workshop | That everyone receives the same daily rate or the minimum wage |
| Record under Article 5(1)(a) of Law No. 5510 | That all days were reported with old-age insurance premiums |
| Assignment outside the institution | That an ordinary employment contract and all long-term premiums exist |
| In-facility service | That the duty is unpaid in every case |
| Work for public benefit | That all prison workshop wage and insurance provisions apply in full |
Work safety and health obligations
Health assessment for the job
Fitness for work is not limited to general good health. Required lifting, prolonged standing, operating machinery or contact with chemicals must all be assessed. The health framework in Article 29 of Law No. 5275 and Article 24 of the Regulation is important from this perspective.[2] [5]
If a new ailment emerges during work, a re-examination, an adjustment of duties or a move to suitable work may be requested. In an emergency, access to health care takes priority. The date of the event, the task, the equipment used and the health applications made should be recorded for later legal review.
The occupational safety exception does not remove the State’s responsibility
Article 2(2)(d) of Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety (6331 sayılı İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu) excludes from its scope the prison workshop, education, security and vocational training activities carried out within enforcement services for convicted and detained persons as part of rehabilitation. This exception does not mean that every member of prison staff and every kind of work is excluded in the same way.[4]
More importantly, the scope exception does not remove the obligations to protect life, bodily integrity and health. Constitutional guarantees and other relevant legal provisions continue to apply. Where the work is performed, and under what status, matters for determining which protective obligations arise.[1] [6]
What do real court decisions say?
Constitutional Court decision: a different regime and health protection
In its norm review decision of April 3, 2013 (E. 2012/97, K. 2013/51), the Constitutional Court (AYM) rejected the application for annulment of the relevant scope exception in Law No. 6331. In the majority’s assessment, the link between the work of convicts and detainees and the enforcement and rehabilitation process, and the different legal regulations that apply to them, were taken into account.[6]
The decision cannot be read as meaning that health and safety measures are unnecessary. Engin Yıldırım’s dissenting opinion particularly emphasised that persons in this group should benefit from general protection against the risks of occupational accidents and diseases. A dissent does not change the majority decision or the rule in force, but it is important for understanding the constitutional dimension of the dispute.
This is a norm review decision. It did not decide the fault, the damage or the compensation in any particular accident. Responsibility in a specific accident requires a separate examination of the event and of the applicable legal route.
The Stummer decision: pension system and forced labour
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, in Stummer v. Austria (App. No. 37452/02, July 7, 2011), examined the exclusion of prison work from the old-age insurance system. On the prohibition of discrimination read together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court found no violation by ten votes to seven. On Article 4 of the Convention, it found no violation by sixteen votes to one.[7]
The decision was given in view of Austria’s overall social protection system and the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States in this area. The Court’s assessment does not mean that prison work can never create a right to social security, or that every form of work is compatible with the prohibition of forced labour. For a concrete insurance dispute in Türkiye, the Law No. 5510 currently in force and the person’s records must first be examined. For details, see the article on good conduct assessment and objection to a decision of the Administration and Observation Board (İdare ve Gözlem Kurulu).
Which documents and which route to use
A calculation table for a wage dispute
At the start of an application, bring together the assignment decision, the workshop or service unit, the work category, the applicable daily rate decision, the attendance record, the payroll and the custody account. Days claimed to be missing and each payment item should be shown on separate lines. Instead of saying “my wages are short,” state for which period, through which account and by how much the difference arises. A payroll or board decision that the person does not hold may be requested from the institution. Claims for premiums, overtime and profit share should not be mixed into the normal daily rate calculation. This makes both the claim and the administration’s response open to review.
Enforcement judgeship and the social security route
For complaints about the institution’s work arrangements and other enforcement-related acts, the scope of duty under Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu) is taken into account. The complaint period is fifteen days from learning of the act and, in every case, thirty days from the act itself. An objection to an enforcement judgeship decision may be made within two weeks of notification.[8]
By contrast, for disputes arising from the SGK’s insurance and premium procedures, Article 101 of Law No. 5510 and the nature of the dispute must be considered separately. Not every claim should be directed to the enforcement judgeship. A complaint about an institutional act, a social security application or a claim for damages does not automatically suspend the time limits applicable to each. For detailed procedure, applying to and objecting before the enforcement judgeship and the enforcement law reviews can be read together. On this subject, the article on conditions and periods for supervised release may also be read.
Records of a workplace accident
The date and time of the accident, the task being performed, the machine used, the training and supervision arrangements, protective equipment, first aid and medical records are all important. If preservation of existing camera footage is requested, the location and time window should be stated as precisely as possible. Administrative action on the work arrangement, insurance benefits, liability for damages and suspicion of a crime may each be subject to different legal assessments.
In an individual application, the exhaustion of effective remedies and the thirty-day period running from learning of the final decision are observed. A claim for money that has been rejected is not, on its own, a constitutional violation. A failure to protect health, a failure to assess a decisive claim or another constitutional problem must be linked to the events and the documents.[9]
Conclusion
In prison work disputes, the first step is to determine correctly the legal status of the work. The wage calculation is made from the daily rate decision and the actual records; the social security outcome from the insurance branches reported; and the health and safety question from the concrete risks of the duty. A file that keeps these distinctions apart avoids unnecessary generalisations and ensures that the claim is directed to the competent authority, with the right documents and within time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a pretrial detainee be compelled to work?
No. Work by pretrial detainees is voluntary. If they accept work, the provisions on work and pay that apply to them are the relevant ones.
Does everyone who works in prison receive the minimum wage?
No. The type of work, the special provision in the law and the applicable daily rate decision are what determine the outcome. A rule provided for one particular form of work outside the institution cannot be generalised to all jobs.
Do periods of work in a prison workshop count toward retirement automatically?
No. Short-term insurance protection under Article 5(1)(a) of Law No. 5510 does not mean that all long-term insurance premiums have been paid. The type of notification and the other insurance conditions must be examined.
Is an in-facility cleaning duty always unpaid?
No such absolute generalisation can be made. The legal nature of the assignment and the payment conditions in the regulation must be assessed.
Does the exception in Law No. 6331 remove liability for a workplace accident?
No. The scope exception of the Law does not remove the obligations to protect life and health. The other provisions that apply and the proper route of application are determined separately in the concrete case.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası), Articles 17, 18, 49, 56 and 60.
- Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Security Measures (5275 sayılı Kanun), Articles 29–32 and 114.
- Law No. 5510 on Social Insurance and General Health Insurance (5510 sayılı Sosyal Sigortalar ve Genel Sağlık Sigortası Kanunu), Articles 5(1)(a) and 101.
- Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety (6331 sayılı İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu), Article 2(2)(d).
- Official legislation page of the Prison Workshops Authority (İşyurtları Kurumu resmî mevzuat sayfası), Regulation on the Administration and Tendering of Prison Workshops of Penal Enforcement Institutions and Remand Centres (Ceza İnfaz Kurumları ile Tutukevleri İşyurtları Kurumu ve İşyurtlarının İdare ve İhale Yönetmeliği), especially Articles 20–25 and 32–38.
- Constitutional Court (AYM), E. 2012/97, K. 2013/51, April 3, 2013, assessment of Article 2(2)(d) of Law No. 6331 and the dissenting opinion of Engin Yıldırım.
- European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Stummer v. Austria, App. No. 37452/02, July 7, 2011, especially §§ 99–111 and 127–136.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships (4675 sayılı İnfaz Hâkimliği Kanunu), Articles 4–6.
- Law No. 6216 on the Constitutional Court (6216 sayılı Kanun), Articles 45, 47 and 48.
- Law No. 4301 on Certain Financial Provisions Concerning the Prison Workshops Authority (4301 sayılı İşyurtları Kurumuna İlişkin Bazı Mali Hükümlerin Düzenlenmesi Hakkında Kanun), Article 8.