The Supreme Court of Appeals delivered its ruling on September 15, 2020, affirming that GPS data collected from a company vehicle can be used to justify disciplinary action when certain conditions are met. This interpretation is noted in the decision issued by the court under the civil department of the Supreme Court, Social Department. The ruling outlines the circumstances under which data captured by a GPS geolocator installed in a company vehicle is considered lawful for workplace discipline. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020].
The core points of the decision are clear. First, the worker must be informed about the installation of the tracking device. Second, the vehicle’s use must be restricted to business activities. Third, the data should focus solely on the vehicle’s movement and location without extending to monitoring unrelated personal activities. These conditions together form the basis for legitimate use of GPS data in disciplinary matters. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020].
-
The worker is informed about the installation of the device. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
-
Use of the car is limited to business activities and is not used for personal purposes. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
-
When the data only collects information about the vehicle’s movement and location. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
The Supreme Court is reviewing the case of a retail telecommunications equipment trading company and finds it appropriate to dismiss a supervisor who was disciplined for excessive use of a company vehicle. The decision notes that the supervisor used the vehicle during medical leave and on the weekend preceding that period, despite a prohibition on using the vehicle for other purposes. The GPS system captured these actions, and the worker was informed of the tracking installation at that time. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
This record shows how GPS tracking can play a role in legitimate disciplinary actions when the monitoring is disclosed, limited, and relevant to work-related activity. The court emphasizes that the monitoring should be tied to job duties and not infringe on personal privacy beyond agreed limits. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
Protection of employee rights remains a central consideration. The decision implies that workers should be aware of surveillance instruments and the boundaries of their use. When the company ensures transparency, adheres to the stated constraints, and relies on data that reflects vehicle movement within working hours, the GPS record can support disciplinary decisions without overstepping legal protections. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]
Join BİLGİ WhatsApp channel
No violation of fundamental rights
The ruling also discusses the need to inform workers that the vehicle cannot be used outside working hours and that its location can be determined via the GPS receiver. The decision reinforces that appropriate safeguards and clear policies help balance supervisory needs with workers’ rights. [Source: Supreme Court decision, 2020]