Scope of this article
In the first instance this covers employees subject to the Labour Law No. 4857; for civil servants a separate assessment of status and administrative jurisdiction is required.
What is a şua izni pay claim?
Known in practice as "şua izni", "radiation leave" or "ray leave", health leave is a rest right, separate from annual leave, aimed at protecting the health of persons working in areas where ionising radiation sources or radionuclides are used.
This right has two different aspects:
- While the employment contract continues: The primary obligation is rest. The employer cannot continue the work by paying "leave in cash instead of leave".
- When the employment contract ends: Where it is no longer possible to grant the leave in kind, under the Court of Cassation approach to the former regime, unused days are converted into a wage claim.
A şua izni pay claim is not overtime pay. Because the employee could not rest during the leave period, a double daily wage or a punitive multiplier is not applied. In the Court of Cassation's decisions under the former regime, the calculation follows, by analogy with the annual leave pay, the formula one day's wage × unused days.
Can şua izni be converted into money while still employed?
No. Converting health leave into a payment for wages while the employment contract continues defeats the purpose of the right, which is to protect the health of the employee. Adding a "şua izni pay" line to the payslip and continuing to employ the worker in a controlled area does not mean that the leave has in fact been granted.
In its decisions E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141 and E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that şua izni will not be converted into a wage while the employee is working, and that on termination it is calculated, by analogy with annual leave, on the last wage.
For this reason, where the employment relationship continues, the correct claim is, as a rule:
- that health leave be planned and granted in accordance with the regulations,
- that actual hours in the controlled area be recorded,
- that work on days shown as leave be stopped,
- that internal complaint, occupational health and safety mechanisms and, where the conditions exist, legal protective routes be used.
A claim for past leave pay while the employment continues may encounter an objection based on acceleration of the debt. On the other hand, where work continues without leave being granted, the preservation of records should not be postponed so that evidence is not lost.
When does the şua izni claim arise and become due?
Accrual of the right, its use and the monetary acceleration of the debt are different concepts:
| Stage | Legal meaning | Effect on the calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Actual work in a controlled area | The scope of the health leave and the number of days accrue | Depending on the period, four weeks or the EK-2 day count is determined |
| Failure to grant the leave | The employer has not in fact provided the rest right | A balance of unused days may arise |
| Termination of the employment contract | Granting the leave in kind has become impossible | Under the former-regime case law the monetary claim becomes due |
| Non-commencement of work after a reinstatement decision | If the first termination has been removed, a new actual termination date arises | The last wage, limitation and action date change by reference to the new date |
In its decision E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted as early claims for annual and şua leave brought before an actual termination had occurred, because the first termination had been removed by the reinstatement process. For this reason the "termination date" should not be read only from the SGK exit line; it must be determined together with the reinstatement process, the transfer of the workplace, the suspension of employment and the process of resumption of work.
Why is the correct calculation made in three separate stages?
Before a single multiplication is carried out in a şua claim, three separate legal questions must be answered:
1. Is there an entitlement?
The employee's job title alone is not sufficient. It is examined whether the device used produces ionising radiation, whether the working area has the character of a controlled area, what the employee's actual role was, the work done with mobile devices and the records of actual work. MRI and ultrasound devices do not produce ionising radiation; for this reason, working only with those devices does not, as a rule, give rise to a şua izni entitlement.
2. How many days of leave are unused?
Depending on the date range in which the work was carried out, the former four-week system or the EK-2 hours table applies. Leave documents are compared with PACS/RIS/HBYS and patient procedure records. Where there was actual work on a day shown as leave, whether that day counts as used leave is disputed.
3. How much is one day's wage?
The last actual monthly wage at the date of termination is determined; the monthly wage is divided by 30. The guaranteed wage, regular premium/progress payment and any other wage elements that are a direct consideration for the work performed are assessed. Social benefits are not added automatically.
If any one of these three stages is missing, the arithmetical result is not legally reliable.
How do pregnancy, maternity leave, the breastfeeding period and milk leave affect the calculation?
These four periods are not the same, and they should not be excluded in a single line in the EK-2 calculation. Under the common protective approach of the current service legislation, working conditions are reorganised so as to protect the embryo, the foetus and the breastfed child. An employee who may be pregnant or is pregnant must not be assigned to radiation areas for the remainder of the pregnancy. For breastfeeding staff, the express minimum prohibition is not to be assigned to radiation areas with a risk of radioactive contamination. In the Radiology Services Regulation this rule appears in Article 13(11) following the amendment of December 16, 2025; the position of duty under the nuclear medicine and radiation oncology legislation must also be checked separately.
Because the post-2022/2023 calculation of a health leave day depends on the actual hours in the controlled area:
| Period or situation | Effect on EK-2 hours | Important distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Suspected pregnancy and the remaining period of pregnancy | No hours should accrue in this area, as actual work in a radiation area must not be carried out | An employer's assignment despite the prohibition separately gives rise to a breach of occupational health and safety |
| Statutory maternity leave | Not added to controlled-area hours, as there is no actual work | The maternity leave period is not the same concept as the "breastfeeding period" |
| Breastfeeding period | Work in a radiation area with a risk of radioactive contamination is not permitted; other duties are assessed according to the specific arrangement | Treating the entire breastfeeding period automatically as zero hours is not correct in every file |
| Daily milk leave | Only those actual hours in the controlled area that were not spent on milk leave are assessed | Daily milk leave does not automatically exclude the whole working day or the whole breastfeeding period |
| Temporary assignment to a non-radiation unit | Does not enter the controlled-area hours | Continuation of pay and the employment relationship alone do not create şua izni hours |
How hours worked in breach of the protective rule are treated in the health leave calculation, and the administrative, occupational health and safety or compensation consequences of that work, are separate problems. Recording work done in breach of the rule in the EK-2 record does not mean that the assignment was lawful. The pregnancy notification, the letter of change of duty, the shift schedule, the dosimeter, card entry and device logs should be preserved together.
Which day-count rule applies to which period?
In a multi-year file, the period of work must be divided at the dates on which the legislation changed:
| Period of work | Applicable framework | Day count |
|---|---|---|
| Up to 25.06.2021 | The 1939 Regulation | Four weeks for completed years where the conditions are met, that is, a 28 continuous-day approach |
| 25.06.2021–25.04.2022 | The Regulation was repealed and the first EK-2 Regulation was not yet in force | Law No. 3153, personnel status and the specific transaction are examined separately; no automatic 28 days or retroactive EK-2 calculation is made |
| 26.04.2022–12.04.2023 | The first Regulation brought into force by Decision No. 5530 | EK-2 according to the actual period in the supervised area |
| 13.04.2023 and after | The current Regulation brought into force by Decision No. 7077 | EK-2 according to the actual period in the controlled area; at most 30 days |
Period error warning: The 2023 EK-2 table cannot be applied to work carried out in 2015. Likewise, the former four-week Regulation rule cannot automatically be carried over to work in 2024 or 2026.
How is the former four-week system calculated?
Under the former regime, up to June 25, 2021, the Regulation provided that a person within its scope should take four uninterrupted weeks of rest per year. In older Court of Cassation practice, for completed years the following formula has mostly been used:
Earned days under the former period = completed years within the scope × 28 days
Partial years, the actual start of coverage at the workplace, intermittent work, the use of leave and the nature of the staff member's exposure must also be assessed separately. Writing an automatic pro-rata 28 days for every calendar fragment worked in the former period, or ignoring the whole partial period, is not safe without examining the decision and the concrete records.
How is the EK-2 calculation made after 2022 and 2023?
Under the current system, the actual working time in the controlled area within a calendar year is placed in brackets of 50 hours. For the technical preliminary calculation of positive working time:
Leave days = round up (total actual hours in the controlled area / 50)
The result may not exceed 30 days. For example, 420 hours corresponds to nine days, 740 hours to fifteen days, 1,225 hours to twenty-five days and 1,480 hours to thirty days of health leave.
Leave, sick reports, unpaid leave, work in another unit and periods not spent in the controlled area must be deducted from the total under the conditions of the current Regulation. Having worked overtime does not raise the leave calculation above 30 days; working time and occupational health and safety breaches are assessed separately.
The full EK-2 table and the calculation to the minute are dealt with in a separate article: "How Many Days Is Şua İzni? How Health Leave Is Calculated According to Actual Work Time in the Controlled Area". This page does not repeat the same table, but focuses on the calculation of the claim.
EK-2 and pay calculation for part-time employees
Whether the employment contract is full-time or part-time does not change the basic logic of health leave. EK-2 looks not at how many days a week the employee worked, or at the position label in the establishment, but at the total actual hours spent in the controlled area in each calendar year. For example, if the verified controlled-area work of a part-time technician during the year is 740 hours, that gives rise to 15 days of health leave in the same EK-2 bracket as a full-time employee.
When the wage is calculated at termination, however, a full-time comparable wage or a hypothetical "salary completed to full time" is not used. The pay model is:
- where the monthly wage is a fixed part-time wage, the daily amount is found by dividing the employee's own last actual gross monthly wage at termination by 30;
- where the pay is per hour, day, on-call duty or shift, the last actual monthly wage that is representative of the contract and of the actual payment arrangement must first be established; no artificial full-time equivalent should be created;
- where there is a regular premium or progress payment, whether it is a consideration for work performed is separately examined under the actual-wage criteria of this article.
Accordingly, the 15 days in the 740-hour example show the number of leave days; the monetary value of those days is calculated on the employee's own last actual wage arrangement.
Does unused health leave turn into money on termination after 2023?
It is not safe to answer this question with an unqualified "yes" or "no".
Under the former Regulation, the Court of Cassation decisions formed a strong and repeated approach that unused şua izni turns into a claim on termination, calculated on the last wage. The current Regulation ties the leave period to actual hours; it provides that the leave may not be divided, may not be used consecutively across years, and may not be carried over to another year. In its decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, the 12th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 12. Daire) rejected the application for annulment directed at this non-transfer prohibition.
However, that Council of State decision does not directly provide that days which the employer did not grant to a private-sector employee have no monetary consequence on termination. On the other hand, the earlier Court of Cassation decisions have not interpreted the non-transfer sentence of the current Regulation.
| Scenario | Strong legal argument | Principal risk |
|---|---|---|
| The employee earned the right under the former regime and left without the leave being granted | Claim based on the last wage under the established Court of Cassation approach | Proof of entitlement and of the days used |
| The employee reached an EK-2 bracket after 2023, the employer did not grant leave, and then termination occurred | The employer cannot render the protective right void through its own breach; in-kind use after termination is impossible | The direct established Court of Cassation case law on the new regime is limited; the defence of the non-transfer prohibition |
| The employee did not request the leave in time and the year has passed | The employer's duty to plan and protect the leave may be disputed | The non-transfer provision in the Regulation is a strong defence |
| The employee left in the middle of the year | The hour bracket accrued up to the date of departure can be calculated | Established case law on the monetary consequence of an incomplete year is limited |
| A civil servant claims monetary compensation | Article 103 of Law No. 657 and administrative procedural law are examined together | The worker-claim case law may not apply directly; the jurisdiction changes |
Why is a written leave request before the year ends important?
If the employer does not plan or grant the health leave despite the approaching end of the year, the employee should, before the relevant calendar year ends, make a written application bearing a date and a registration number. The application should request written notification of:
- the schedule of actual controlled-area hours recorded for that year,
- the number of health leave days calculated under EK-2,
- the dates on which the leave will be granted without being divided in breach of the Regulation.
An institutional document system, KEP, a notary, a petition bearing the signature of the recipient, or institutional e-mail that proves the sending and integrity of the content may be used. The employee should keep the annexes of the application, the registration number and the employer's reply. If the request has been refused or left unanswered, the situation should be recorded in writing again before the year ends.
Sample request sentence: "... I request that, for the calendar year, my actual working hours in the controlled area using ionising radiation and the number of days I am entitled to under the EK-2 Health Leave Table be notified to me in writing, and that my health leave be planned and granted in accordance with the relevant legislation without loss of rights at the turn of the year."
Such a written request may be strong evidence of the employee's intention to use leave and of the employer's attitude to granting or planning it. However, the petition does not transfer the leave day to the following year of its own motion, does not remove the non-transfer prohibition, does not guarantee payment of wages on termination and, as regards a monetary claim not yet due, does not of itself produce an automatic default. The employer's duty to plan the leave also cannot be reduced to the employee's making a request. The application should not contain the patient's name, national identity number or health data.
On the basis of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm's legal assessment, the failure of an employer to grant the health leave contrary to the regulations, and the non-producing of any result from a leave that can no longer be granted in kind because of the termination, may render the protective right ineffective. This view, however, cannot be presented as a settled Court of Cassation practice guaranteeing the result in all files after 2023. The litigation strategy must be built by examining the status of the personnel, the actual hours, the records of the request, the termination date and the developments in the Council of State and Court of Cassation.
What does "last wage" mean in a şua izni claim?
The last wage is, as a rule, the monthly wage that forms the basis of one day's wage on the actual termination date of the employment contract. In the former Court of Cassation decisions, past years' şua leave is not calculated separately by each year's historical wage; it is calculated on the last wage at termination.
The purpose of this approach is not to add up nominal wages that were low in the past one by one. The leave balance that turns into a monetary claim on termination is met at the value of the wage at that date.
However, the "last wage" cannot be determined by looking at which of the following three figures appears on the payslip:
- the root/fixed amount in the employment contract,
- the earnings line for SGK premiums,
- the bank transfer for the last month.
The actual wage should be determined by examining together the contract, payslips, bank movements, progress payment schedules, premium protocols, performance reports, the company/invoice model and comparable wage data.
What is the difference between root wage, SGK base and actual wage?
| Concept | What it shows | Why it is not sufficient by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Root or guaranteed wage | The fixed minimum contractual wage provided to the worker each month | It may leave out a regular premium/progress-payment model |
| Gross wage on the payslip | The wage and additions the employer has recorded on the payslip for the month in question | Incomplete payslips, different coding or payment of part of the wage through another channel are possible |
| Earnings subject to SGK premiums | Earnings declared as subject to premiums under Law No. 5510 | May differ from the total actual wage because of the premium ceiling, exemptions or incomplete declaration |
| Net amount deposited in the bank | The cash payment made to the employee | May be net after tax and premiums; may include expense reimbursement or a non-wage payment |
| Actual wage | The fixed and regular variable wage agreed as consideration for the work performed and actually paid | Found by considering all the evidence and the nature of the payment together |
In its decision E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed the dispute over the actual wage claimed, as against the payslip/SGK amount, together with bank records and witness statements. This decision does not mean that "the SGK record is worthless"; it shows that the SGK record is only one of the pieces of evidence in determining the actual wage.
How do the guaranteed wage and performance premium enter the actual wage?
In the business model examined in the Court of Cassation decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, the radiology specialist's pay had been structured as "salary/guaranteed wage + premium/progress payment". The Chamber stated that the premium added according to the work performed is part of the basic wage, and that for the variable amount the payments over the year preceding termination should be averaged monthly.
On the basis of this decision, the typical formula is as follows:
Last actual gross monthly wage = fixed gross guaranteed wage at termination + monthly average of the regular variable wages in the appropriate reference period looking back from the termination date
Gross daily wage = last actual gross monthly wage / 30
Gross şua claim = gross daily wage × unused days
The one-year period in that decision is the direct method used to represent the variable premium in that specific dispute, and is a strong reference in a similar wage model. However, where the period of work is less than a year, the premium system has changed materially in the last months, or there was a one-off unusual payment, the period that is representative must be separately justified.
Five questions for whether a premium or commission should be taken into account
- Is the payment a direct consideration for the work or service performed?
- Does the employment contract, a supplementary protocol or established practice make the payment part of the wage model?
- Is the payment regular or recurring in nature?
- Can the amount be calculated from objective performance, transaction, turnover or progress-payment data?
- Is the payment in the nature of an expense reimbursement, a gift, a one-off bonus or a social benefit?
If the answers to the first four questions are predominantly "yes" and the answer to the last question is "no", the acceptance of the payment as a wage element is strengthened. The fact that a payment is labelled "premium" on the payslip is not sufficient by itself, nor does its being made under a different name or through a company automatically change its true nature.
Is the base wage or the fully loaded wage the basis?
The question is misleading when it is put in the two extremes.
The base wage generally means only the basic/root wage. The fully loaded wage is a technical concept used, in particular in calculating severance pay, by adding regular cash and benefits measurable in money. For the şua izni pay claim, the clear and safe Court of Cassation principle is the "last wage". The 2022 decision treats the premium/progress payment as a regular consideration for work as part of the base wage; but it does not establish the same result for all social benefits.
In its decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882, the court of first instance relied on a finding of a "fully loaded gross of 56,063.70 TL" in a fixed-payment-plus-premium arrangement; the Court of Cassation affirmed the regional court of appeal's outcome on the general ground of procedural and legal conformity. The decision itself does not provide an independent basis for the proposition that meals, transport, private health insurance, family benefits and every benefit must necessarily be added to all şua files.
The safe terminology is therefore as follows:
The şua izni pay claim is calculated on the actual last wage at the date of termination. The actual last wage may include the fixed guaranteed wage and the variable wage elements that are a regular consideration for the work performed and are proved by concrete evidence. The "fully loaded wage" formula, which automatically includes all the benefits in the severance pay calculation, cannot be applied without justification.
Which payments may be included?
| Payment item | General assessment | Criterion for inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed / root / guaranteed wage | Included as a rule | The gross amount at the date of termination |
| Performance premium / progress payment | May be included | Consideration for work, regularity and calculability; the 2022 decision is a strong basis |
| Regular sales or transaction commission | May be included | An appropriate period average, if it is a continuous part of the wage model |
| On-call duty pay | Not automatic | It is examined whether it is a continuous component of the normal wage or a separate consideration for work |
| Overtime pay | Generally a separate claim | Not automatically added to the şua daily wage; double counting of the same work must be avoided |
| National holiday / public holiday and weekly rest pay | Generally a separate claim | Not regarded as part of the last actual base wage |
| Regular cash meal allowance | Disputed; not automatic | Whether it is a social benefit or a wage element; the contract and the purpose of payment are examined |
| In-kind meal at the workplace | Generally a social or in-kind benefit | The severance pay approach does not automatically carry over into the şua calculation |
| Transport allowance / shuttle | Not automatic | The character of a support for getting to work or of an expense reimbursement may predominate |
| Private health insurance / pension scheme contribution | Not automatic | A social benefit nature; whether it is a direct consideration for work |
| Travel allowance / official travel expenses | Generally excluded | A documented expense or travel consideration, which may not be a wage |
| One-off success bonus | In most cases excluded, or separately disputed | If there is no continuity and representative capacity, it may distort the average |
| Signing, transfer or retention payment | According to the specific contract | It is examined for which period and which performance it is the consideration |
| Payment for services by the employer to a physicians' company | The name is not decisive | The real structure of the employment relationship, sham arrangements, progress payment and the personal labour consideration are examined |
The fact that a payment item is subject to SGK premiums does not in itself show that it will certainly be added to the şua calculation; nor does exemption from SGK premiums mean it will certainly be excluded. The social security base and the determination of the actual wage for labour law purposes are different legal questions.
Which reference period should be used for the last wage?
For a fixed wage, the gross monthly amount at the date of termination is used. For a variable wage, a single final month may be unusually high or low. The decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 required the monthly average of the premium paid over one year preceding termination.
Example method:
- Obtain 12 months of payslip and bank data preceding the termination date.
- For each month, gross up the premium/progress payment of a wage nature or determine the gross amount on the payslip.
- Exclude refunds, expenses, one-off social payments and other claims.
- Divide the total regular variable wage by the number of months covered.
- Add the average variable wage to the fixed guaranteed wage at termination.
| Special situation | Appropriate approach |
|---|---|
| Working period of 7 months | Only the months actually worked and representative of the wage model are used; no artificial division by 12 |
| Premium system changed in the last 3 months before termination | The old and new models are separated; the justification for which model continued at termination is given |
| Unusual device sales or bonus payment in one month | Excluded from the average if it lacks continuity and wage character |
| Some months' employer records incomplete | Completed through bank records, progress payment data, automation records, e-mail and document production |
| Payments were made net | Each month is grossed up under the actual deductions applicable on the date of that payment; a single fixed rate is not used |
Why is the monthly wage divided by 30?
The daily wage of a worker paid by the month is, as a rule, determined by dividing the monthly wage by 30. Whether the calendar month has 28, 29 or 31 days does not change this basic divisor.
Gross daily wage = last actual gross monthly wage / 30
Since a şua claim is not an hourly-rate wage, such as overtime pay, a division by 7.5, a 50% supplement or a double multiplier is, as a rule, not applied. The number of days is multiplied by the daily wage.
How should the gross and net calculation be separated?
In a court or expert calculation, it is more verifiable first to determine the gross wage components and the gross claim. The net sum actually payable to the employee may vary according to the rules on the date of payment or accrual, including income tax, stamp duty, social security and unemployment insurance deductions and the ceiling for premium-earning income.
The 2026 SGK announcement on the earnings subject to premiums explains that the annual leave pay is included in the earnings of the month of termination and that the limits of Law No. 5510, Articles 80–82, apply. In the şua claim, although the analogy with annual leave pay is strong, the legal nature of the concrete claim and the payroll and premium practice must be separately verified by a financial adviser or expert by reference to the decision text and SGK practice.
Accordingly:
- the gross or net character must be clearly stated in the petition and in the expert report,
- the conversion from net to gross must be carried out using the actual rates of each payment month,
- the 2026 rates must not be copied to a past or future payment year,
- the employee's share and the employer's cost must not be confused,
- the employer's SGK share must not be added to the employee's gross claim,
- if the net result is "approximate", the assumptions must be explained.
Important: The examples in this article are intended to show the logic of the gross claim. The net collection calculation cannot be finalised without knowing the employee's insurance status and the tax/premium rules at the date of payment.
Examples of şua izni pay calculations
Example 1 — Fixed wage only
Assumptions:
- Fixed gross monthly wage at termination: 30,000 TL
- Unused leave: 15 days
- No regular variable wage
Calculation:
30,000 / 30 = 1,000 TL gross daily wage 1,000 × 15 = 15,000 TL gross şua claim
In this example it is assumed that there is no independent legal or contractual basis for adding meals, transport or social benefits.
Example 2 — Guaranteed wage plus regular performance premium
Assumptions:
- Gross guaranteed wage at termination: 30,000 TL
- Total regular gross premium over the last 12 months: 720,000 TL
- Monthly average premium: 720,000 / 12 = 60,000 TL
- Unused leave: 15 days
Calculation:
Last actual gross monthly wage = 30,000 + 60,000 = 90,000 TL Gross daily wage = 90,000 / 30 = 3,000 TL Gross şua claim = 3,000 × 15 = 45,000 TL
The difference of 30,000 TL between the 15,000 TL calculation based on the root wage alone and the 45,000 TL calculation reflecting the wage model shows why the legal nature of the premium is central to the file. This difference does not arise automatically in every case; it must be proved that the premium is an actual wage element.
Example 3 — Multi-year balance under the former four-week period
Assumptions:
- Completed years of work within scope before 25.06.2021: 8 years
- Days earned under the former regime: 8 × 28 = 224 days
- Valid leave actually used: 56 days
- Unused balance: 168 days
- Last actual gross monthly wage at termination: 90,000 TL
Calculation:
Gross daily wage = 90,000 / 30 = 3,000 TL Gross claim = 168 × 3,000 = 504,000 TL
In this example it is assumed that the action was brought within the limitation period from termination, and that the days worked and unused have been proved. The actual use records, the transfer between employers and the transition period must be checked separately.
Example 4 — File with both old and new periods
Assumptions:
- 2020 former-regime balance: 28 days
- 01.01–24.06.2021: a separate legal assessment is required for the partial year; not included in this example
- Transition interval 25.06.2021–25.04.2022: no automatic days written
- Verified EK-2 period from 26.04–31.12.2022: 820 hours → 17 days
- 2023: 740 hours → 15 days
- 2024: 1,225 hours → 25 days
- Valid leave used: 20 days
- Arithmetical balance: 28 + 17 + 15 + 25 − 20 = 65 days
- Last actual gross monthly wage at termination: 75,000 TL
Preliminary calculation:
Gross daily wage = 75,000 / 30 = 2,500 TL Arithmetical gross amount = 65 × 2,500 = 162,500 TL
This figure should not be accepted as the value of the action directly. The non-transfer rule for days after 2022/2023 and its monetary consequence on termination must be separately classified. A reliable expert report should show at least two sub-totals:
- the section based on the settled former-regime case law,
- the disputed section dependent on the legal characterisation under the new EK-2 regime.
Example 5 — When net payments are wrongly grossed up
Where the employee's bank account received variable amounts over the last 12 months that appear to be "net", it is wrong to add the total net divided by 12 directly to the gross wage. The payslip, tax bracket, premium ceiling and deduction structure of each month may be different. The expert must first determine the legal nature of each month's net payment, and then the correct gross equivalent. Grossing back at the same fixed percentage can create serious errors, particularly for high-earning physicians, because of the SGK ceiling and the changing tax brackets.
How do leave forms and automation records affect the number of days?
The employer's submission of a signed leave form does not in every case conclusively establish that no work was carried out on those days. In its decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that where workplace records show work on the dates shown as leave, the days actually worked should not be deducted from the şua leave claim. Decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 also treats hospital automation records as one of the essential elements of the concrete finding.
Records to be compared:
- leave request and approval forms,
- PACS/RIS imaging and reporting logs,
- HBYS user movements,
- patient admission, procedure and approval times,
- Medula procedure records,
- turnstile/card-access and camera records,
- device console user logs,
- shift, on-call and duty rosters,
- personal dosimeter reports,
- e-mail, internal messages and task lists.
A login to the automation system is not the same as actually working in the controlled area at the device. The connection of the logs with the processing, the user, the time and the physical area must be explained by a technical expert.
KVKK-compliant evidence note: When collecting their own evidence, the employee should not unnecessarily reproduce the patient's name, national identity number, diagnosis or image. Where possible, the type of procedure, date–time and user identity should remain visible, patient data should be masked, and the raw records should be requested from the employer or through the court. No unlawful access or transfer of data should be made.
Which documents are needed for a şua izni claim?
Entitlement and day-count documents
- employment contract and job description,
- SGK service statement and workplace titles,
- device inventory, make/model and technical documentation,
- NDK authorisation/licence records,
- controlled-area plan and radiation safety decisions,
- shift, on-call, temporary assignment and mobile device records,
- PACS/RIS/HBYS/Medula and device logs,
- personal dosimeter reports,
- leave request/approval documents and leave register,
- pregnancy notification, maternity/milk leave records and letters of temporary assignment to a non-radiation unit.
Documents on the last actual wage
- payslips for the last 12 months and, where necessary, a longer period,
- bank account movements,
- premium/progress payment contract and calculation schedules,
- procedure, imaging, turnover or performance reports,
- contracts for the payment company/invoice model set up by the employer,
- e-mails and internal wage notifications,
- SGK premium-base earnings records,
- occupational, seniority and workplace data that can assist a comparable wage search.
Termination and litigation documents
- termination notice, resignation petition or notarised notice,
- reinstatement action and documents of the application to resume work,
- mediation application form and final minutes,
- release, payment receipt and account statement,
- transfer of workplace and subcontractor agreements.
Patient data and commercial records must not be copied unlawfully onto the employee's own device. Evidence preservation, production of documents through the court and the requisition of institutional records should be planned securely.
Which points should be checked in the expert report?
An expert report should be examined for its data source and calculation logic, not only for the result figure:
- [ ] Has the period of work been correctly divided at 25.06.2021, 26.04.2022 and 13.04.2023?
- [ ] Has an automatic 28 days or a retroactive EK-2 calculation been applied without justification to the transition interval 25.06.2021–25.04.2022?
- [ ] Are the completed years within scope and the partial year under the former regime shown separately?
- [ ] Has the actual controlled-area time of each calendar year after 2022/2023 been calculated separately?
- [ ] Has the EK-2 result been limited to 30 days?
- [ ] Have leave, sick reports, unpaid leave and periods outside the controlled area been properly separated?
- [ ] Have pregnancy, maternity leave, the breastfeeding period and daily milk leave been kept distinct?
- [ ] Has only the verified controlled-area hours of a part-time employee been used?
- [ ] Has mobile device work, temporary assignment and New Year shift been attributed to the correct year?
- [ ] Have the leave forms been cross-checked with automation and device logs?
- [ ] Has the same day or procedure been counted twice?
- [ ] Has the effective termination date been determined taking account of reinstatement and suspension processes?
- [ ] Have past leave days been calculated on the last wage and not on the wage of each year?
- [ ] Has the last wage been reduced to the root wage on the payslip alone?
- [ ] Has the guaranteed wage + progress payment/premium agreement been examined?
- [ ] Has the reference period for the variable premium before termination, or the reason for a different period chosen, been shown?
- [ ] Have one-off, social or expense-reimbursement payments been excluded?
- [ ] Has the "fully loaded" label been used to add all benefits automatically?
- [ ] Have net payments been grossed up using the actual deductions of each month?
- [ ] Has the SGK premium base been treated as the single and conclusive evidence of the actual wage?
- [ ] Has the monthly wage been divided by 30?
- [ ] Has an incorrect double or multiplied coefficient been used?
- [ ] If an equity reduction has been applied to the same claim, is there a legal justification for it?
- [ ] Have gross claim, estimated net and employer cost been kept separate?
- [ ] Have the settled/strong section and the post-2023 disputed section been separately sub-totalled?
- [ ] Have only the days whose actual use is proved been set off against the used leave?
- [ ] Is the interest type and start date consistent with the demand and default records?
If the report cannot be audited, a supplementary report should be requested showing the raw tables, the formulas used and the supporting documents.
What are the employer's strongest defences?
"The employee was not in a controlled area"
A job title, unit name or dosimeter alone is not decisive. The device, area, procedure and actual work records must be examined together. This defence may be strong especially in files concerning MRI/ultrasound, reporting rooms and occasional intervention.
"All leave was granted"
A signed leave document, the leave register and the payslip are important evidence in the employer's favour. The employee must specify the procedural and automation records showing actual work on the same dates.
"The premium was not wage; it was a fee for company services"
The actual function of the payment, not its name, is important. The employment relationship, personal dependency, progress payment method, company/invoice structure and whether the payment is directly tied to personal labour are examined. Not every company payment is automatically a worker's wage.
"Meals and transport do not enter the şua calculation"
This defence has serious legal foundation, because the Court of Cassation's clear last-wage principle cannot be automatically transferred to the fully loaded severance wage. The claimant must show separately that each item is a consideration for work performed.
"The 2023 Regulation prohibits the transfer of leave"
This is one of the strongest defences in new-period claims. The employee may argue, however, that the leave was not granted because of the employer's obligation and that in-kind use became impossible on termination. Since established Court of Cassation case law is limited, the result depends on the file.
"The action was brought too early"
If the employment contract is continuing or the actual termination has not yet occurred in a reinstatement process, this is a strong objection. The acceleration date should be settled before the action is brought.
How are the limitation and interest calculated?
Under the current Court of Cassation approach, since şua izni is not converted into money while work continues, it does not become due until termination. The five-year limitation period starts, as a rule, from the actual termination date of the employment contract. The Court of Cassation decisions E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141 and E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837 support this approach.
This does not mean that only the last five working years before termination will be calculated. If the action is brought within the five-year period following termination, all unused former-period days in the employment relationship may come into the assessment, subject to the proof of entitlement and the law of the period.
On interest, the Court of Cassation's 9th Civil Chamber, in decision E.2016/2547, K.2019/12571, stated that the şua claim should carry statutory interest and not the highest deposit interest applied by banks. However, the fact that the claim became due upon termination does not mean that interest starts automatically on the day of termination in every case. The date on which the employer was placed in default for the particular amount, by a formal notice, a mediation application, an action or an increase/extension of the claim, must be determined separately.
Practical check: The limitation start date, the interest start date and the actual termination date may create three different date questions in the same file.
How are mediation and the type of action determined?
Before an action is brought for a şua izni pay claim by a private-sector employee, mandatory mediation under the Labour Courts Law No. 7036 is a condition precedent. The application must state the type of claim clearly:
"The gross equivalent of the health/şua leave days earned by actual work carried out in controlled areas using ionising radiation sources and/or radionuclides, not granted during the continuation of the employment relationship, converted into a monetary claim on termination of the employment contract and to be calculated on the last actual wage at termination, consisting of the fixed and regular premium/progress payment elements."
Where working hours, automation records, leave documentation and premium documents are in the employer's hands, the amount of the claim may not be objectively determinable on the date of the action. In that case, an action for an indeterminate claim under Article 107 of the HMK may be argued. However, if all the days and wage documents are in the employee's hands, an objection based on legal interest to the action for an indeterminate claim may arise. The type of action, the increase/extension of the claim and the limitation consequences must be chosen together.
For an employee subject to the employment contract, the court with subject-matter jurisdiction is, as a rule, the labour court. Jurisdiction is determined under the mandatory rules of Law No. 7036, including the place of residence of the employer and the place where the work was carried out.
Which route do 4/A and 4/B civil servants and public-law personnel follow?
The model in this article of "last actual wage at termination followed by a claim before the labour court after mandatory mediation" is designed mainly for workers subject to Law No. 4857 and, where the conditions are met, for subcontractor employees. Working in a public institution does not in itself mean being a civil servant; the payslip, appointment or approval documents, the contract and the SGK status must be examined.
| Status | Competent jurisdiction and starting route as a rule | Warning on the calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Worker subject to Law No. 4857 in a public institution | Mandatory mediation and then the labour court | The principles of worker claims and the last actual wage may apply |
| Civil servant under Article 4/A of Law No. 657 | Written application to the institution and administrative jurisdiction depending on the type of dispute | The worker's formula of a claim on termination with the last wage does not apply automatically |
| Contract personnel under Article 4/B of Law No. 657 | Administrative service/contract status and the act are examined; as a rule administrative jurisdiction | Should not be assumed to have the same personnel regime as 4/A |
| University or personnel with special public status | Law No. 2547 and the rules of special status are examined separately | It must be separated whether the claim is for the grant of leave, correction of the wrong hour/day calculation, annulment of a rejection, or compensation for monetary/personnel rights |
For public personnel, the nature of the claim must first be identified: the grant of health leave during continuing service, correction of a wrong hour or day calculation, annulment of a rejection decision and compensation for the monetary or personnel rights alleged to have been lost are not the same action. Where an existing rejection or calculation act exists, annulment; where there is loss arising from the act, annulment and full remedy; where the administration is asked to take a decision, Article 10 of the İYUK; where the reversal or amendment of an existing act is sought, Article 11; and where loss arises from an administrative act or action, the framework of Articles 12–13 may apply.
Under Law No. 2577, where there is no special period, the general period for bringing an action in the administrative court is 60 days from written notification. For applications under Articles 10 and 11 of the İYUK there is a 30-day mechanism of answer or implied rejection; however, whether the application stops the action period, how the remaining period runs and whether the application falls under Article 10 or Article 11 depend on the concrete act. In respect of an allegation of administrative action, the one-year and five-year prior application limits in Article 13 may also arise. For this reason, one should not proceed on the assumption that "if a new petition is filed to the institution at any time, the period starts again". Applying the worker-claim mediation rule or a single uniform "claim action" route to a civil servant may cause loss of jurisdiction and time.
Does a release or the "I used all my leave" document end the right?
Not every document has the same effect:
- A leave form should show that the leave was in fact granted on specific dates.
- Where the automation records show work on the same day, the material accuracy of the form may be disputed.
- After termination, a monetary release must carry the conditions of writing under Article 420 of the Code of Obligations (TBK), a one-month period, the type and amount of the claim, and complete payment through a bank.
- A payment made under an invalid release may, depending on its conditions, have the effect of a receipt or set-off.
- A general abstract statement such as "I have received all my rights" does not in every case remove the specific şua days and the actual wage.
How do the transfer of the employer and the principal employer–subcontractor relationship affect the calculation?
Imaging services in hospitals may be carried out through different companies. Where the conditions of a principal employer–subcontractor relationship exist, joint liability may arise under Article 2 of the Labour Law No. 4857. In a transfer of workplace, Article 6 of Law No. 4857 applies separately as regards the continuation of the employment contract and the periods of liability.
In calculating days, the same continuous period of work must not be recorded twice; it must be determined which employer kept the records for which date range. The last wage is determined by the payment arrangements at actual termination; calculating separately by historically low wages at previous employers may not accord with the Court of Cassation's last-wage approach. However, the scope of the defendants' liability and their limitation defences must be examined separately.
Güneş & Güneş Law Firm's legal assessment
The legal opinion developed by Güneş & Güneş Law Firm for radiology specialists working on a premium basis, stated in general and anonymised form, is as follows:
- The calculation of the şua izni pay claim should not be reduced to the root wage on the payslip or to the SGK base.
- Where the pay contract is in the model of guaranteed wage + regular premium/progress payment linked to the work performed, the actual basic wage may be the sum of these two components.
- For variable premiums, the monthly average over the year preceding termination, as in decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, is a strong starting method.
- If the expression "fully loaded wage" is used, it should be explained that, in the concrete case, it means the fixed and variable wage items constituting the regular consideration for the work performed, not all the benefits in the severance pay sense.
- Decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 affirmed the concrete regional court of appeal result, but did not establish an independent general rule that all meal, transport and social benefits must be added to every şua claim.
- The most reliable calculation classifies the wage elements item by item, separates the old and new leave periods, and shows the certain and disputed sub-totals separately.
This assessment may vary according to the evidence in the concrete file and is not a result guarantee binding on the court.
Step-by-step roadmap for a şua claim file
- Determine the status: worker, civil servant, contract personnel or another status.
- Find the actual termination date: check for reinstatement, suspension and possible resumption of work.
- Divide the working period: use the 25.06.2021, 26.04.2022 and 13.04.2023 boundaries.
- Prove the entitlement: the device, the controlled area, the duty and the actual work.
- Calculate the days: calculate the former four-week system and the new EK-2 separately.
- Verify the leave used: compare the paper records with automation.
- Establish the last actual wage: classify the guaranteed wage, regular premium and other items.
- Calculate the gross claim: last actual monthly wage / 30 × unused days.
- Separate the new-period risk: keep the non-transfer and monetary conversion debate as a separate sub-total.
- Secure the documents: prepare, if necessary, an evidence preservation under Article 400 HMK and a document production request under Article 219 HMK.
- Apply for mediation: state the type of claim, the period and the wage elements expressly.
- Manage the action and expert review: check interest, limitation, gross/net and employer liability separately.
Common calculation errors
- Writing an automatic 28 days for all years of work.
- Extending the 2023 EK-2 table back before 2021.
- Adding days to the transition interval without a legal basis.
- Treating the days earned and the days unused as the same.
- Using the historical wage of each year instead of the last wage.
- Treating the root wage shown on the payslip as an undisputed actual wage.
- Regarding the SGK base as the absolute ceiling of the wage.
- Using the last month's premium instead of a 12-month average.
- Combining expense reimbursement and social benefits with the wage premium.
- Adding all benefits automatically under a "fully loaded" label.
- Treating a net bank payment as if it were the gross wage.
- Doubling or applying a multiplier to the şua claim.
- Putting the old and new period amounts on a single line without distinguishing the legal risk.
- Not comparing the leave form with automation records.
- Using the wrong termination date after a reinstatement decision.
- Choosing the benchmark for the prior and the current premium without justification.
- Mistaking the two-week reinstatement period for the şua claim's limitation period.
- Asking for interest "at the highest deposit rate" as an automatic demand.
Frequently asked questions
Does a resigning employee have a right to a şua izni claim?
Under the former Court of Cassation approach, conversion into a leave pay claim depends not on who terminated the employment, but on the employment ending and the leave being no longer capable of being granted in kind. Resignation is therefore not an automatic bar. Entitlement, the day balance, limitation and the new-period rules are separately examined.
Is the last wage always the figure written on the final payslip?
Not always. The final payslip is an important piece of evidence; however, where there is a guaranteed wage + premium/progress payment system, bank payments or incomplete SGK notification, the actual wage may differ.
Is the performance premium always added?
No. The premium may be added if it is a regular consideration for work and a part of the wage model. A one-off, social or expense-type payment is not added automatically.
Are meals and transport included in the şua calculation?
Not automatically. The fully loaded wage formula of the severance pay calculation cannot be applied automatically to the şua claim. The contractual nature of each item and whether it is a consideration for work performed are assessed separately.
Is the 12-month premium average written in the law?
No. This period is the strong case-law method used in the Court of Cassation decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 to determine a variable premium. A concrete wage model may require a representative period of a different length.
Is the şua claim calculated gross or net?
Calculating the gross amount explicitly makes the claim more auditable. The net payment is determined by the legal deductions at the accrual/payment date. The petition and the judgment must state clearly whether the amount is gross or net.
If my SGK base is low, is my claim also low?
Not necessarily. The SGK record is an important piece of evidence; however, because of the premium ceiling or incomplete declaration it may differ from the actual wage. The contract, payslip, bank and progress payment records should be examined together.
Is a şua izni claim doubled or calculated with a multiplier?
As a rule, no. Each unused day is calculated at one day's wage. Overtime and other wage claims have separate legal grounds.
Does the 2024 Court of Cassation decision require all benefits to be added?
No. Decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 affirmed the regional court of appeal's result in the concrete case based on a fixed-plus-premium and automation records. It did not establish a general rule adding every social benefit to every şua claim.
Are post-2023 leave days definitively converted into money?
Direct and settled Court of Cassation case law on this is still limited. The non-transfer rule of the Regulation and the employer's duty to grant the leave must be considered together. The certain and disputed parts of the file should be separated.
Must the pregnancy or the milk leave period be added in full to the EK-2 calculation?
No. Maternity leave generates no controlled-area hours; in the breastfeeding period, work in a radiation area with a risk of radioactive contamination is not permitted. Daily milk leave does not in itself exclude the whole breastfeeding period; only the hours actually worked in the controlled area, without prejudice to the lawfulness of the assignment, may be assessed in the EK-2 calculation.
Can a part-time employee who works 740 hours earn 15 days?
Under the current EK-2 bracket, 740 hours of controlled-area work corresponds to 15 days. Part-time status does not reduce the number of days; but the preliminary monetary calculation is made on the employee's own last actual wage arrangement, not on a full-time comparable salary.
Does a civil servant at a state hospital bring a labour court action?
As a rule, no. Disputes arising from the status of civil servants under Article 4/A and contract personnel under Article 4/B of Law No. 657 are subject to the administrative court regime; a worker employed by a public institution under Law No. 4857 follows the worker route. The type of administrative application, the implied rejection, the 60-day general period and the choice between annulment and full remedy must be determined by the concrete act or action.
If I have a reinstatement action, when should I bring the şua claim action?
The first termination may be removed by the reinstatement process. Court of Cassation decision E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455 shows that a claim brought before an actual termination has occurred may be premature. The date of the action should not be fixed before the application to resume work and the employer's reply are awaited.
If the expert calculated only on the basis of the SGK statement, what should be done?
A specific objection should be made to the report, submitting the contract, bank, progress payment and premium records showing that the actual wage is different. The report should explain which payment item in which month is added to the wage and why, through a table.
How does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm work on these files?
Depending on the circumstances of the file, the following legal work may be carried out:
- analysis of the working status, period and competent jurisdiction,
- review of controlled-area and NDK/device records,
- evidence map for PACS/RIS/HBYS and leave records,
- separate day calculation of the former four-week regime and the new EK-2,
- classification of the guaranteed wage, regular premium and social benefits,
- reconstruction of the pre-termination wage period,
- gross/net and SGK-layer control coordinated with specialists,
- mediation application and litigation type strategy,
- legal and calculation objections to the expert report,
- analysis of principal employer–subcontractor and workplace transfer liability,
- preventive leave, records and payroll compliance systems for employers.
Güneş & Güneş Law Firm has provided legal services from Antalya since 1999, across Türkiye and in files with international connections. In each file, the available options, uncertainties and evidence risks are assessed separately; no result is guaranteed.
Conclusion
The şua izni pay claim is not simply the number of years worked multiplied by the last wage. The result depends on determining together:
- the correct working status,
- the correct employer and liable persons,
- the legislation applicable to the date of the event,
- the ionising device and the controlled area,
- the actual working hours,
- the leave actually used,
- the true last wage, and
- the type of action changed in 2026.
Under the established Court of Cassation approach to the former regime, unused leave is calculated on the last wage at termination. Where the pay model consists of guaranteed wage plus regular performance-related premium, these variable payments may form part of the actual base wage. The "fully loaded wage" concept, as used in the severance calculation, should not be copied without justification; meals, transport and social benefits must be examined item by item.
The 2024 affirmance in decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 was correct on the concrete facts of that file, but it did not establish a separate general rule that all benefits must be added. The relationship between the non-transfer provision of the 2023 system and the monetary conversion on termination must be followed through new case law.
Final legal conclusion: A reliable calculation is one that separates the old and new leave periods, takes the last actual wage from the payment relationship rather than the payslip label, does not confuse wage elements with social benefits, and shows the certain and disputed sub-totals separately.
Confidentiality and legal notice
Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are assessed within the framework of the professional secrecy of lawyers, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. Patient data, health records, payslips and bank movements must not be sent through insecure open channels.
This article is for general legal information only. It does not constitute a definitive calculation of a claim or a result of litigation without examination of the working status, the period, the device, the controlled area, the termination date, the payment arrangement and the records.
Sources and legal bases
Legislation and official sources
- Official Gazette of 13 April 2023, No. 32162: Presidential Decision No. 7077 and the current Regulation.
- Official Gazette of 25 June 2021, No. 31522: repeal of the former Regulation by Presidential Decision No. 4144.
- Official Gazette of 26 April 2022, No. 31821: first EK-2 Regulation by Presidential Decision No. 5530.
- Official Gazette of 16 December 2025, No. 33109: current regulation on pregnancy and the breastfeeding period in Article 13 of the Radiology Services Regulation.
- Ministry of Justice/UYAP — Radiology Services Regulation: consolidated current regulation.
- Ministry of Justice/UYAP — Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577: administrative action period, application, annulment and full remedy framework.
- Law No. 657 on Civil Servants: personnel status and the basis of health leave in Article 103.
- SGK — 2026 Earnings Subject to Premiums and Implementation Statement: Law No. 5510, Articles 80–82, reporting of wages/premiums and annual leave pay.
- Revenue Administration — Income Tax Law No. 193: wage definition and withholding framework.
Judicial decisions
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2015/32289, K.2019/4787, 26.02.2019: accessible decision text.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2016/2547, K.2019/12571, 29.05.2019: accessible decision text.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141, 25.02.2021: Ministry of Justice/UYAP and Çalışma ve Toplum access.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, 15.02.2021.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, 18.01.2022: accessible full text.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882, 17.09.2024: accessible full text.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, 04.11.2025: accessible decision text.
- 12th Chamber of the Council of State (Danıştay 12. Daire), E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, 27.05.2025: accessible reasoned decision.
Academic sources
- Miraç Şamil Pekşen, “İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2025/4, pp. 1913–1942.
- Samet Can Olgaç, “İş Hukukunda Şua İzin Alacağı Üzerine Yargıtay Kararları Işığında Genel Bir Değerlendirme”, Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi, No. 117, 2015, pp. 333–358.
- İrem Yayvak Namlı, “Radyasyonla Çalışan İşçilerin Şua (Sağlık) İzni”, Sicil İş Hukuku Dergisi, No. 51, 2024.