Does Failure to Grant Şua Leave Entitle the Employee to Terminate for Just Cause?

Is there automatic just cause? A six-question quick test

A single “yes” answer is not sufficient for a result. The file as a whole and the employer’s defences must be assessed.

Why is şua leave a mandatory right to health and rest?

Article 1 of the Annex to Law No. 3153 sets the weekly working time for places and work involving diagnosis, treatment or research with ionising radiation, and for the personnel working in them, at 35 hours. Article 8 of the Regulation of 13 April 2023 provides for health leave to be granted to personnel working in controlled areas, in addition to annual leave.

Under the current system, health leave:

• depends not merely on the professional title but on actual work in a controlled area where an ionising radiation source is used;
• is determined from the EK-2 table according to the actual hours in one calendar year, between 1 and 30 days;
• is an additional protection on top of annual leave;
• as a rule, cannot be divided, combined with another year or carried over to another year;
• may cover mobile X-ray and fluoroscopy work carried out in controlled areas.

This leave is not merely a financial advantage. It serves the purpose of rest and the protection of health in the face of the cumulative risks of working with radiation. For this reason, an employer that continually neutralises the protective purpose on general grounds such as “staff shortage”, “workload” or “pay instead of leave” may incur legal liability.

Is every radiology or imaging employee automatically entitled?

No. An employee’s job title, the name of the department or the fact of carrying a dosimeter is not sufficient on its own. It must be examined whether the device produces ionising radiation, whether the area has the status of a controlled area and what the actual hours are. Work solely in MRI or ultrasound does not, as a rule, involve ionising radiation; however, where the employee also works in tasks within the scope of the Regulation, such as X-ray, CT, angiography, fluoroscopy, nuclear medicine or radiotherapy, that work is assessed separately.

A person who is not entitled, or who calculates the number of days wrongly, and then terminates on the ground that “leave was refused”, runs a significant risk. For this reason, an entitlement analysis must be carried out before any analysis of just cause for termination.

Are şua leave, annual leave and the 35-hour limit the same right?

No. Three separate protections are involved:

An employer does not escape its annual leave obligation by granting şua leave. Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2016/972, K.2019/9865 also emphasises that şua leave must be granted separately from annual paid leave. However, in the same decision the just cause for termination is based not on the failure to grant şua leave, but on the failure to grant annual leave for more than seven years.

This distinction avoids an important error that is frequently made in case law transcription on the internet.

Can an employee waive şua leave?

Leave that serves the purpose of protecting health is not an ordinary ancillary benefit that can be neutralised merely by an agreement between employer and employee. An employee’s declaration that “I will not use the leave”, “I have received my pay” or “I accept working in the busy period” does not automatically remove the mandatory health protection.

In particular, the following documents do not in themselves produce a definitive result:

• a “waiver of şua leave” clause in a standard contract,
• an unclear “leave pay” line in the monthly payslip,
• a signed leave form, where system records show actual work on the date of leave,
• a general consent by the employee to overtime,
• a dosimeter result that appears low or zero.

A waiver is not the actual use of leave. The employer may plan the date of the leave within the rules of good faith and the requirements of the service; however, it cannot permanently remove the right.

Can a collective agreement or an employment contract confer broader rights?

The Law and the Regulation set the minimum level of protection of the right to health and rest. Where a collective agreement, an individual employment contract or a practice established at the workplace grants the employee a longer leave or a more favourable condition for its use, that arrangement must also be assessed. Provisions to the detriment of the employee cannot narrow the mandatory protection; provisions favourable to the employee may become a working condition that must be applied in the concrete case. For this reason, not only the statutory table but also the collective agreement, the employment contract, the personnel regulation and the established practice of previous years must be examined.

Is it lawful to pay money instead of leave while the employment relationship continues?

As a rule, no. While the employment contract continues, the purpose is that the employee should rest. Working on days that should be leave and paying separately for them does not replace protective rest and does not result in the leave being treated as used.

The Court of Cassation’s approach to the former regime, and the 2025 academic work, do not accept substitution by pay while working, and link the monetary claim to the end of the contract. Accordingly:

• while the employment relationship continues, the employee should first request that the leave be granted in kind;
• payment by the employer is not proof that it “granted the leave” in the light of work and automation records;
• once the employment contract ends, whether the unused periods have turned into a pay claim is examined separately.

Why is caution needed for the period after 2023?

The new Regulation links the leave to a table of actual hours and introduces rules on non-divisibility and the prohibition on carrying over to another year. A settled body of Court of Cassation case law that directly resolves all the consequences of unused days after 13 April 2023 for termination and for just cause has not yet been formed. For this reason, categorical statements such as “the leave is definitively lost” or “in every case it converts into pay” should not be made.

For the employee, the safest course is to request in writing that the entitled leave be granted before the calendar year ends and to document the employer’s failure to plan.

Can the employer decide the date of the leave?

The employer has the power to plan the concrete date of the leave because of the organisation of the work and the continuity of the service. If the employer selects a reasonable alternative date and actually grants the right, the refusal of the single date requested by the employee does not, on its own, mean just cause for termination.

However, the power to manage cannot be used for the following purposes:

• postponing the leave continuously;
• making no plan at all until the year end, and thereby benefiting from the carry-over prohibition;
• recording the employee as on leave on paper while actually making the employee work;
• removing the employee from other rights such as annual leave or unpaid leave;
• treating a permanent refusal based on staff shortage as a justification;
• putting pressure on, or retaliating against, the employee because of a request.

The Court of Cassation’s annual leave decisions also do not treat every dispute about dates as just cause; they distinguish facts such as very long periods without any leave being granted or unjustified refusal despite a request. Although the protective purpose is more pronounced in health leave, a concrete examination of the facts is still required.

What should an employee do if the employer refuses the leave request?

First step: clarify the entitlement calculation

The relevant calendar year, controlled area, device and actual hours must be determined, and the number of days calculated under EK-2. Earlier periods of work are calculated separately according to the regulation in force on the date of the event.

Second step: make a written leave request

The request should contain the following:

• the calendar year worked;
• the controlled area and the duty;
• the known or approximate actual hours;
• the number of days of health leave requested;
• a request that the leave be planned without interruption;
• a request for written notification of the precise records and the employer’s calculation;
• a registry number or verifiable proof of delivery.

Third step: record the reply and the actual practice

A refusal letter, a failure to reply, an alternative date proposal, a change of shift and an instruction to work on leave days should each be kept separately. Relying solely on oral discussions increases the risk in proof.

Fourth step: notice requiring correction and preservation of evidence

If the employer does not plan the leave at all or does not reply despite the approaching year end, a request for correction may be considered by notary, KEP (registered electronic mail), the institution’s document system or a reliable corporate e-mail. At the same time, it may be requested that shift records, card-entry data, HBYS/PACS/RIS and device logs, and leave documents be preserved.

Fifth step: analysis of the risk of termination

Termination is not the first or an automatic step. Whether the breach is continuing, the employer’s reply, the period under Article 26, other breaches and the risk concerning severance pay must be analysed in legal terms.

Communicating with the occupational health and safety board and official inspection channels before termination

If the employer refuses a written leave request or does not reply to it, the employee may, depending on the nature of the concrete breach, consider the following channels before termination:

• if there is an Occupational Health and Safety Board at the workplace, a written application to the board regarding radiation safety, personal dose monitoring, work in a controlled area and the consideration of health leave;
• where no board exists, a written application to the employer; if there is an allegation of serious and imminent danger, a written application in accordance with Article 13 of Law No. 6331;
• for working conditions, the 35-hour week and the implementation of leave, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security’s ALO 170 line and the competent inspection channels;
• for the operating arrangements of the health institution, the Provincial Health Directorate or the relevant units of the Ministry of Health;
• for the licensing, authorisation and radiation safety of the radiation source, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NDK).

An OHS Board decision, an inspector’s examination or a finding by the competent authority may create strong official evidence; however, the final assessment of the existence of just cause for termination belongs to the court. These applications do not automatically suspend the time limit of Article 26 of Labour Law No. 4857, the limitation period for labour claims or the condition precedent of mediation before litigation. Choosing the wrong authority may also fail to preserve the time limits.

Model written leave request

Subject: Request for calculation and granting of health/şua leave Under Article 8 of the Regulation of April 13, 2023 and the EK-2 Health Leave Table, I request that the actual work I have performed in the controlled area using an ionising radiation source within the [YEAR] calendar year at [UNIT/AREA] be calculated by day and by hour and notified to me in writing, and that the date on which the health leave I have earned will be granted, in accordance with the law, within the same calendar year and without division, be determined. I also respectfully request that the shift, controlled-area entry and exit, device, HBYS/PACS/RIS and leave records be preserved. Date, full name, signature.

This example must be adapted to the concrete file. Writing the wrong device, period or number of days may make it easier for the employer to object to the claimant’s entitlement later.

Does failure to grant şua leave fall within Article 24(II)(f) of Labour Law No. 4857?

Article 24(II)(f) of Labour Law No. 4857 gives the employee a right to terminate without waiting for the notice period where the working conditions are not applied. It can be strongly argued that health leave arising from the law is a working condition for the employee who is entitled to it.

Miraç Şamil Pekşen’s 2025 academic work also assesses the employer’s failure to grant şua leave as a just cause for termination under Article 24(II)(f). This is a current and important doctrinal view; it is not a binding court judgment.

The main factors in the concrete file that strengthen or weaken the just-cause claim are as follows:

Assessment of just cause in three concrete scenarios

These scenarios are examples. In the same event the employment status, the legislative period, the employer’s reply, Article 26 and the content of the termination notice may change the outcome.

What do the Court of Cassation decisions show about the limits?

What does Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber E.2016/972, K.2019/9865 say?

In the decision, health leave was granted to an angiography nurse, but annual leave was not separately granted. The Court of Cassation accepted that şua leave is separate from annual leave, and that failure to grant annual leave for more than seven years constituted just cause.

This decision is strong for the proposition that health leave cannot replace annual leave. However, it is not the source of the result that “once şua leave is refused, termination for just cause is definitive”.

Why is Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber E.2017/10772, K.2019/8028 important?

In an annual leave file, granting the employee only 14 days over a period of more than six years was assessed as a long failure to secure the right to rest. The decision shows that the statutory right to rest has the nature of a working condition. In a health leave file it is supportive by analogy; it is not the same right or the same legislation.

What warning does Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers E.2021/211, K.2022/1228 give?

The majority of the General Assembly did not accept that exceeding the annual general overtime limit of 270 hours was, on its own and in every case, an automatic just cause for termination; it attached importance to facts such as the working arrangement, approval, pay and requests for correction.

That decision does not concern şua leave or Law No. 3153. Nonetheless, it is a supporting principle showing that the formula “a single numerical breach = automatic just cause” should be avoided.

Does Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837 rest directly on refusal of şua leave?

No. In the termination notice, the employee alleged the non-payment of overtime and holiday pay, and that annual and şua leave had not been granted. In the result, the termination was based on the incorrect reporting of the actual wage to the SGK and on unpaid overtime and national holiday pay under Article 24(II)(e).

This decision shows that several concrete breaches may be set out together in the termination notice, but that the court reads carefully the breach on which it bases just cause.

Which provisions apply to occupational health and safety?

Şua leave is not the only element of radiation safety. The employer also has obligations for risk assessment, area classification, dose monitoring, personal protective measures, training, health surveillance and working-time limits.

When can Article 24(I)(a) of Labour Law become relevant?

Where performance of the work has become dangerous to the employee’s health or life because of the nature of the work, Article 24(I)(a) may be considered separately. However, a dispute over leave alone does not fall within this category automatically, without proof of medical or technical risk.

The following evidence may become important in the assessment under Article 24(I)(a):

• the dose limit or the personal dose report;
• the finding of the workplace physician or the health board;
• an inspection report of the NDK or another competent body;
• a deficiency in the licence or safety of the device or area;
• a deficiency in protective equipment or barriers;
• a serious risk notification and the employer’s failure to respond.

Can the employer postpone health leave when the dose limit has been exceeded?

Normal health leave is calculated according to actual working time in the controlled area and is planned within the organisation of the service. By contrast, Article 8 of the 2023 Regulation provides that where the dose to which a person working with radiation in a controlled area has been exposed exceeds the relevant limits, the health leave must be granted immediately by the health institution or organisation. Routine planning leave and urgent protective leave caused by dose excess must not be confused.

Continuing to employ someone in the face of a dose excess may, where verified by concrete technical and medical records, constitute a more serious health and safety breach under Article 24(I)(a) and Law No. 6331, not merely a failure to apply working conditions. However, a claim of dose excess must be verified by the personal dosimetry report, an authorised laboratory result, a workplace physician record or an examination by a competent body; the employee should not, in every event, simply stop coming to work.

The right to refuse work under Article 13 of Law No. 6331

Article 13 of Law No. 6331 regulates the right of an employee who faces a serious and imminent danger to apply to the occupational health and safety board or, where there is no board, to the employer. If a decision is taken in favour of the application, refusing to work may come into question until the necessary measures are taken. In an emergency where the danger cannot be prevented, the employee may move to a safe place.

This procedure differs from a request for health leave. An employee should not stop attending work merely on the basis that “my şua leave was not granted”, without examining the conditions of Article 13. An unauthorised absence may give the employer a defence under Article 25(II)(g).

Can health damage or occupational disease give rise to rights?

The failure to grant health leave does not, by itself, prove that every illness or bodily injury was caused by the employer. In a claim of occupational disease or of harm linked to radiation, the duration and intensity of exposure, the personal dose records, the nature of the illness, other risk factors and the appropriate causal link are examined separately.

Where the conditions are met, claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, together with the SGK’s examination of an occupational disease, may come into play as legal routes independent of the claim for health leave pay, overtime and severance pay. Before the evidence is lost, the workplace health file, the dosimetry results, the risk assessment and the device and area records must be properly preserved.

What happens if the 35-hour weekly limit is exceeded?

Article 1 of the Annex to Law No. 3153 fixes the weekly working time for places and work related to ionising radiation at 35 hours. In Court of Cassation decisions, work exceeding 35 hours has been treated as the subject of an overtime calculation for the period after 30 January 2010.

Three separate consequences arise at this point:

1. Health leave calculation: The actual controlled-area hours are added to EK-2; even where they exceed 1,500 hours, leave does not exceed 30 days.
2. Overtime claim: Hours exceeding the 35-hour week are calculated separately, according to the pay and bonus system.
3. Just cause: Continuous excess of the limit, the employee’s objection, non-payment of wages and the health risk may affect the assessment under Article 24; however, every excess does not produce an automatic result on its own.

Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 deals in detail with the calculation of overtime for work with a basic wage and a performance bonus. The decision also shows that where there is a record of work in the hospital’s automation system on dates recorded as leave, those days should not be used to offset leave.

Is non-payment of overtime pay a separate ground for just cause?

If the employer does not pay overtime pay that is owed under the law or the contract, Article 24(II)(e) of Labour Law may come into play. This is a breach separate from the failure to grant şua leave.

The following distinction must be made in assessing termination:

• Breach of leave → failure to apply working conditions under Article 24(II)(f).
• Non-payment of overtime or public-holiday pay → incomplete payment of wages under Article 24(II)(e).
• Concrete and documented health risk → where the conditions are met, Article 24(I)(a) and/or Article 13 of Law No. 6331.

These breaches may coexist in one file. The termination notice must, however, clearly show the facts on which it relies.

Must a written warning be given before termination?

Under Article 24 of Labour Law there is no general formal requirement to send a prior warning in every case. However, because the employer as a rule plans the date of health leave, the written request and the refusal are of decisive importance in most files from the point of view of proof.

A prior warning serves the following functions:

• it shows that the employee genuinely wishes to take the leave;
• it gives the employer the opportunity to calculate and to plan;
• it documents an express refusal, silence or delay;
• it makes visible the risk of the year end and of the carry-over prohibition;
• it proves that the employee requested the correction of the working arrangements;
• it strengthens the causal link between the subsequent termination and the breach.

If the employer completely remedies the breach following the warning, the timeliness of any termination subsequently based on the same event, and whether the just cause continues, are reassessed under Article 26.

How is the six-working-day period under Article 26 of Labour Law applied?

Article 26 of Labour Law No. 4857 provides, for immediate termination based on the circumstances set out in Article 24(II) that are contrary to the rules of morality and good faith, a period of six working days from the date on which the event becomes known, and, as a rule, one year from the date of the act.

The starting point in a health leave dispute is not always the same:

• where there is a single and definitive refusal, the date of the refusal and the date of knowledge become important;
• where the employer does not plan the leave continuously, or the breach continues, a debate on a continuing breach arises;
• where the breach has ended or the employer has granted the right, the date from which the period runs is reassessed;
• for termination based on a health reason under Article 24(I), the six-working-day period of Article 26 does not apply in the same way; however, the reasonableness of the timing and the continuing nature of the health risk are important.

How is the six-working-day period determined in the case of a continuing breach?

In health-leave files, a distinction must be made between a “single act” and a “continuing breach of working conditions”. Where the employer has given a single, definitive refusal, the date on which the refusal letter reached the employee is important for the six-working-day period. However, in cases where the employer’s failure to plan leave, working on days recorded as leave or a working pattern that continually exceeds the 35-hour limit persist every day or every period, a debate on a continuing breach arises.

It may be argued that, where a breach is continuing, the right to terminate is preserved for as long as the breach continues; however, the absolute conclusion that “if the breach continues, the employee may terminate on any date without any time risk” cannot be drawn. The last refusal or the last shift or working practice, the date on which the breach was remedied, the employee’s last date of knowledge and whether the basis of termination is Article 24(I) or Article 24(II) must be determined together.

This area requires examination of the file before termination. Both extreme positions—“the breach has gone on for years, so time does not matter at all”, and “six days have passed since the first refusal, so the entire right has been definitively lost”—are misleading.

How should a notice of termination for just cause be drafted?

The intention to terminate must be clear, definitive, unconditional and concrete. Where possible, the notice should follow this sequence:

1. Employment status, duty and workplace.
2. Ionising source or controlled area and periods of work.
3. The health leave entitlement and earlier written requests.
4. The employer’s refusal, silence or conduct of working on leave days.
5. Where there is a 35-hour breach, unpaid overtime or an OHS breach: the dates and records.
6. The sub-paragraphs of Article 24 of Labour Law on which reliance is placed.
7. A clear statement of intention to terminate the employment contract immediately.
8. A request for payment of severance pay and other claims.

Why should the notice not simply say “I resign”?

A certificate of resignation for “personal reasons” or without stated reasons may later make it considerably more difficult to establish a just cause for termination based on a breach of şua leave. In Court of Cassation practice, the reason for termination and the employee’s genuine intention are assessed together. Unless a defect of will is separately proved, an express declaration of personal reasons may be assessed against the employee.

The SGK exit code alone does not finally determine the nature of the termination; however, together with the content of the notice, its service, the last working day and the conduct of the parties, it constitutes evidence.

When does the termination notice take effect, and when should work stop?

Termination for just cause is a unilateral declaration of intention that must reach the employer. If the employee stops coming to work before the termination notice reaches the employer, the employer may develop a defence of absenteeism. For this reason, the date and time on which the notice reached the employer must be preserved by notary, KEP, the institution’s document system, delivery against signature or another method that reliably confirms delivery in the concrete case.

A notary notice is not a condition of validity in every case. What matters is that the employer’s receipt of the termination intention and its content can be proved. Apart from special rights arising from Law No. 6331 in cases of serious and imminent danger, stopping work spontaneously before the termination reaches the employer or before the leave is approved may cause loss of rights.

Sample skeleton of a notice of termination for just cause

Subject: Notice of immediate termination for good cause under Article 24 of Labour Law No. 4857 I have been working as [POSITION] at [WORKPLACE]. Despite my requests for the health/şua leave to which I am entitled under the actual work I performed within [YEAR/PERIOD] in the controlled area in connection with [CONTROLLED AREA/DEVICE], by [REQUEST DATES AND REGISTRY NUMBERS], my statutory right to rest has not been applied by [EXPRESS REFUSAL / FAILURE TO PLAN / ASSIGNMENT TO WORK ON DAYS RECORDED AS LEAVE]. In addition, [IF ANY: working more than 35 hours a week, unpaid overtime/public-holiday pay, or a health and safety breach] continues. Because of the nature and continuity of these concrete breaches, I hereby terminate my employment contract immediately for good cause under the provisions of Article [24(II)(f); where the conditions are met, 24(II)(e) and/or 24(I)(a)] of Labour Law No. 4857. I request that my severance pay and the wage and leave claims arising from my employment be paid within the statutory period. Date, full name, signature.

This text is only a skeleton. No provision or event with no basis should be added; the actual dates, the correct employer and the correct method of service must be used. Although a notary notice is not a condition of validity in every case, it may facilitate proof of service and content.

How is causation between termination and breach proved?

In a claim of just cause for termination, it is not sufficient merely to show that the employer owed a sum in the past. It is examined whether the reason the employee gave for ending the contract existed at the time of termination.

The chronology that strengthens causation is as follows:

1. Work records showing entitlement to leave.
2. A written request for leave.
3. The employer’s refusal or silence.
4. Where necessary, a notice requiring correction.
5. Continuation or recurrence of the breach.
6. A notice of termination for just cause within a reasonable and legal period.

If an employee leaves because another job has been found, without ever disclosing the breach of leave, records a personal reason on the termination document, and raises şua leave for the first time many months later, the dispute on causation becomes more serious. By contrast, repeated written requests during the year, refusals and work records on days recorded as leave establish a strong chronology.

How is the burden of proof distributed in a dispute over şua leave and just cause?

Although the location of the documents and the employer’s obligation to keep records must be taken into account in the concrete case, the basic map of proof is as follows:

The non-production by the employer of records in its possession does not by itself remove the employee’s burden of proof; however, the court assesses it together with the document-production provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), the employer’s duty to keep records and the other evidence.

Which documents should be collected before termination?

Entitlement and controlled area

• [ ] Employment contract, job description and unit assignments
• [ ] SGK service statement and status documents
• [ ] Controlled/supervised area plans and radiation safety committee records
• [ ] NDK licence/authorisation documents and device inventory
• [ ] Dosimeter allocation and monitoring reports
• [ ] Mobile fluoroscopy/X-ray assignments

Actual work and 35 hours

• [ ] Shift, on-call, time-keeping and card-entry records
• [ ] Date–time breakdowns of HBYS, PACS/RIS and Medula records
• [ ] Device console, modality worklist and audit logs
• [ ] Operating theatre case records, anaesthesia and operation forms
• [ ] E-mail, institutional messages and work order records
• [ ] Payslips, bank records and overtime accruals

Leave, request and termination

• [ ] Petitions requesting health leave and registry numbers
• [ ] Replies of the employer or administration and alternative plans
• [ ] Leave forms, leave register and annual leave records
• [ ] Comparison of automation and shift records for the days recorded as leave
• [ ] Notice requiring correction and proof of service
• [ ] Notice of termination for just cause, proof of service and SGK exit record

Health and safety

• [ ] Risk assessment and workplace physician records
• [ ] Dose excess, incident or non-conformity reports
• [ ] Application under Article 13 of Law No. 6331 to the OHS Board or employer, and the decision
• [ ] NDK or competent institution inspection reports

KVKK warning: Patient names, identity numbers and health data must not be downloaded without authorisation or transferred to personal devices. Data should be obtained through court orders, evidence preservation and masking, while preserving the fields for the date, time, user and device of the procedure.

What defences may the employer raise?

What if pressure, a change of shift or a change of duty takes place after a leave request?

Following a leave request, assigning the employee to a more demanding shift, cutting their bonus, changing the place of duty as a punishment, creating disciplinary pressure or forcing resignation should be examined separately, together with timing and other evidence. Not every change of duty automatically amounts to mobbing or discrimination. However, the material change in working conditions, the objective justification, application to similar employees and the close time connection with the employee’s request may be important under Articles 22 and 24 of Labour Law, the duty of equal treatment and, where the conditions are met, compensation for discrimination.

The employee should keep the assignment letters, the earlier and later versions of the shift schedules, bonus payslips, disciplinary notices and internal correspondence. Retaliatory conduct by the employer may create a separate ground for termination or a claim, distinct from the breach of health leave; however, no categorical conclusion can be drawn without the concrete facts being shown.

Does a signed leave form eliminate the justness of termination?

Not always. In Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, an on-site examination of the hospital automation system and an investigation of actual work on dates recorded as leave were requested. Where there is a patient procedure, image approval, device session or shift record on the day the employee was recorded as on leave, the signed form may not be sufficient on its own.

However, automation records also have limits. The possibility of a shared user account, remote access, automatic approval or a password used by someone else must be examined technically. Strong proof depends on several independent records matching in the time sequence.

Does just cause termination give rise to severance pay?

An employee who has at least one year of seniority and proves that they terminated the employment contract for just cause in accordance with Article 24 of Labour Law may claim severance pay under Article 14 of Law No. 1475, which remains in force.

The main consequences are as follows:

What happens if just cause cannot be proved?

The employee’s departure may be treated as an ordinary resignation, and severance pay may be refused. Nonetheless, unused leave and accrued pay claims that arose on termination may be separately established where their own conditions are met. The nature of the termination and the existence of each claim are not the same question.

Can an employee who terminated for just cause receive unemployment benefit?

Termination for just cause under Article 24 of Labour Law may make unemployment benefit available under Law No. 4447, where the other conditions in that law are also met. In the termination exit statement, one of the codes that best suits the nature of the event must be used: 23 — termination by the employee for compulsory reasons, 24 — termination by the employee for health reasons, or 25 — termination by the employee because of the employer’s conduct contrary to the rules of morality and good faith. The SGK exit code, however, does not by itself finally determine the legal nature of the dispute.

According to the current statement of İŞKUR, the employee must have been subject to an employment contract in the 120 days before termination, must have at least 600 days of unemployment insurance premium in the last three years, and must apply in person or electronically within 30 days after termination. Any delay not caused by force majeure is deducted from the total entitlement period. If an incorrect exit code has been reported, the employee must apply in time with the termination notice and other evidence, and the procedure for correcting the Institution’s record and the code must be separately assessed.

Can an employee who was not granted şua leave also claim overtime pay?

Yes; where the conditions are met, the two claims may be made together. The non-grant of health leave is calculated by reference to the leave days of past periods; working more than 35 hours is calculated week by week by the actual period and pay. The same hour or day must not be paid twice under two different heads; however, different legal protections must not be set off against one another.

The expert report should check the following:

• Has the 45-hour limit been used instead of the 35-hour limit?
• Have the employee’s basic/guaranteed wage and regular performance bonus been separated?
• Have the overtime accruals on the payslip been offset monetarily?
• Have the health leave days been calculated separately?
• Has actual work been investigated on dates shown as on leave?
• Have the earlier period and the post-2023 EK-2 period been separated?

Is the route the same for employees of a public hospital?

Status determines the route:

The strategy under Article 24 of Labour Law in this article must not be used for civil servants under Article 4/A. Abandoning the post by public personnel may produce disciplinary, withdrawal and reassignment consequences.

To whom should a subcontractor’s worker address leave and termination notices?

In a public hospital, the contractual employer of a worker employed within a subcontractor is, as a rule, the subcontracting company. It is essential that the notice of termination for just cause reaches the actual contractual employer. Since the public institution as main employer is important for working conditions and joint liability, sending the leave request, the request for preservation of records and the notice of termination to the main employer at the same time strengthens proof of the dispute and the determination of the field of responsibility.

If the notice is sent only to the public institution and does not reach the subcontracting company, a defence may arise that the intention to terminate did not reach the correct employer. A notice sent only to the company is not necessarily invalid in every case; however, it may leave a gap in proof regarding the main employer’s knowledge and its role in the working arrangements. The method appropriate to the concrete case—notary, KEP, the institution’s document system or delivery against signature—should be chosen; no single “on-duty notary” or particular means of service should be presented as the sole condition of validity.

Does a change of subcontractor during a tender amount to termination?

If the company changed during the tender period but the employee continues to work at the same hospital without interruption, the mere SGK exit and entry records do not always mean an actual termination. For just cause, severance pay and past leave periods, the continuation of the actual employment relationship must be examined.

In the termination and claim process, the following must be established from the documents:

• the main employer;
• the last subcontractor as at the date of termination;
• the earlier subcontractors responsible for the relevant periods;
• the actual transfer of the workplace and the possibility of a sham arrangement.

Omitting a party from the mediation application may later give rise to a dispute on the condition precedent to litigation.

What steps should the employee follow, in order?

1. Determine the status: Whether the employee is under Article 4/D, 4/A or 4/B.
2. Verify entitlement: Device, controlled area, year and actual hours.
3. Calculate the leave day: The legislation on the date of the event and EK-2 after 2023.
4. Make a written request: Obtain a registry number and a time limit for reply.
5. Preserve work records: Shift, automation, device and leave data.
6. Assess the employer’s reply: Express refusal, alternative date, silence or leave only on paper.
7. Calculate the 35-hour and pay breaches separately.
8. If there is an OHS risk, apply to the correct channel: the OHS Board, the employer, the workplace physician or the competent institution.
9. Examine Article 26 and the risk of termination.
10. Make the termination notice specific: Not “personal reasons”, but the actual breach and dates.
11. Apply to mediation for the claims.
12. If no settlement is reached, choose the correct type of lawsuit in the competent court.

The uncertain-claim procedure under Article 107 of the HMK was repealed for new lawsuits brought after 31 July 2026. Where the amount of a claim is not known, the new partial lawsuit system under Article 109(4) of the HMK and the option of a full-performance action should be assessed. For detailed procedure, see the guide “How Is a Şua Leave Claim Lawsuit Filed? Mediation, Evidence and Required Documents”.

What should be done in the first 30 days after termination?

• The content of the termination notice and the record of its delivery or receipt should be preserved.
• The SGK exit statement and the exit code reported should be checked.
• Severance pay, health leave, annual leave, overtime and other wage claims should each be itemised separately.
• For unemployment benefit, an application should be made to İŞKUR within the 30-day period.
• A written request should be made for the preservation of HBYS/PACS/RIS, device, shift and leave records.
• In mediation as a condition precedent to litigation, all claims must be correctly described and the main employer and subcontractors must be fully identified.
• An “ibraname” (release), a settlement agreement or a mediation agreement should not be signed without understanding the scope of the health/şua leave and the other rights.

An application for unemployment benefit, mediation and a complaint to an institution are different processes; applying to one does not automatically suspend the time limit for the others.

Legal assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on this subject

In the assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, health leave cannot be managed merely by looking at how many days of leave the employee did not use in the past. In a just cause for termination file, at least four chronologies must be constructed together:

1. Entitlement chronology: Which year, which device, which controlled area and how many hours?
2. Request chronology: When and how many days of leave did the employee request, and what reply did the employer give?
3. Breach chronology: Was leave not planned, did it remain on paper, were 35 hours exceeded, and were wages paid?
4. Termination chronology: On what dates were the last breach, the notice requiring correction, the Article 26 assessment and the termination notice?

If one of these four chains is missing, a gap in proof may arise between “there was entitlement” and “the termination was for just cause”. Depending on the circumstances of the file, the Firm evaluates together the controlled area and device analysis, the EK-2 calculation, the comparison of automation and leave records, the overtime calculation, the wording of the notice and the claim, mediation and litigation strategy.

This approach is a legal opinion; it is not a precedent binding on the court nor a guarantee of result.

Common mistakes

• Sending a termination notice before the entitlement calculation has been made.
• Making the leave request only orally.
• Leaving without assessing a reasonable alternative date proposed by the employer.
• Writing “I resign” and not disclosing the real reasons.
• Treating the 35-hour limit and the EK-2 leave hours as one calculation.
• Believing that a payment made while working is a valid substitute for leave.
• Citing decision E.2016/972 directly as a precedent for the refusal of şua leave.
• Not working through the Article 13 procedure of Law No. 6331, yet staying away from work.
• Creating a KVKK risk by downloading patient data onto a personal telephone.
• Signing a general release drafted by the employer after the termination date without examining it.
• In the mediation application, writing only “all labour claims” and not particularising the health leave and severance claims.
• Omitting subcontracting-chain employers.

Frequently asked questions

Can I terminate for just cause immediately because my şua leave was refused once?

Not automatically. Entitlement, the definitive nature of the refusal, the employer’s alternative plan, the period within the year, the written request, other breaches and Article 26 must be assessed together.

Can the employer postpone the leave on the ground of “no staff”?

A short and reasonable planning change may be assessed in concrete terms; however, staff shortage cannot be a ground for permanently removing the right. The leave must actually be planned within the same year.

Can the employer give money instead of leave?

While the employment relationship continues, money does not, as a rule, replace protective rest. The monetary claim on termination is a separate question.

Is it compulsory to make a leave request?

It is not a statutory condition of validity in every case; however, because the employer plans the leave and because of proof, it is extremely important in most files.

Does my just cause claim fail if the date I requested is refused?

Where the employer grants the right on a close and reasonable alternative date, a dispute over one date usually does not, on its own, create the basis for just cause. Complete neutralisation of the right is assessed differently.

Is exceeding 35 hours by itself a just cause for termination?

No; an automatic result cannot be drawn. Continuity of the excess, the employee’s objection, non-payment of wages, health risk and working arrangements are assessed together. An overtime claim may also arise separately.

What happens if overtime pay is not paid?

Where the conditions are met, Article 24(II)(e) of Labour Law may be relevant. For non-application of health leave, Article 24(II)(f) may be relevant.

What if I simply stop coming to work without requesting leave?

The employer may treat the absence as unauthorised. The risk of absenteeism arises. The special procedure of Article 13 of Law No. 6331 for serious and imminent danger is separate and does not apply automatically in every leave dispute.

What if my dosimeter reads zero: do my health leave and just cause claim fail?

Not by itself. The current leave entitlement depends on the actual hours in the controlled area. However, for just cause the existence of the right and the seriousness of the breach must separately be proved.

Must I be granted leave immediately when the dose limit is exceeded?

Yes. The 2023 Regulation provides that where the dose limit is exceeded, health leave must be granted immediately by the institution. The excess must be verified by the competent records, and the procedure for serious and imminent danger and the conditions of just cause must be assessed separately.

Must I give notice when terminating for just cause?

Where there is a genuine just cause, no notice period is given on immediate termination. However, if just cause cannot be proved, the outcome may be treated as a resignation, so a preliminary examination is important.

Does an employee who terminates for just cause receive notice pay?

As a rule, no. Just cause may give rise to severance pay; it does not, in favour of the employee, give rise to notice pay.

Does an employee who resigned lose unused şua leave pay?

The form of termination does not, under the former regime, by itself prevent unused leave from converting into a pay claim. However, case law directly interpreting all the consequences of the 2023 system is limited. For this reason, the date of resignation, the hour step reached, the leave granted and the legal period must be assessed together.

Can the employee be fired for referring a leave request to the OHS Board?

Retaliation for such a request may give rise to a separate claim, depending on the facts. Each case is assessed on its own facts; a categorical result cannot be stated in advance.

If I sign a release, do I lose my right to apply?

Not in every case. A release is valid only if the conditions of Article 420 of the TBK are met. A document signed without the required conditions or with an incomplete bank payment does not, as a rule, produce a definitive release. Where there is a partial payment, the receipt effect is assessed separately.

Does the employee of a subcontractor have to direct the termination notice only to the company?

The notice must reach the actual contractual employer. Sending a copy to the public institution as main employer is also valuable in terms of proof. The correct method of service must be chosen according to the concrete circumstances.

Can the employee who requested leave be transferred to a less favourable shift?

If the transfer was made as a reaction to the request, it may be assessed under Articles 22 and 24 of Labour Law, the duty of equal treatment and, where the conditions are met, compensation for discrimination. Each case must be assessed on its own facts.

Can an employee who terminated for just cause receive unemployment benefit?

Termination for just cause under Article 24 of Labour Law may make unemployment benefit available under Law No. 4447, where the other conditions in that law are also met. In the termination exit statement, one of the codes that best suits the nature of the event must be used: 23 — termination by the employee for compulsory reasons, 24 — termination by the employee for health reasons, or 25 — termination by the employee because of the employer’s conduct contrary to the rules of morality and good faith. The SGK exit code, however, does not by itself finally determine the legal nature of the dispute.

According to the current statement of İŞKUR, the employee must have been subject to an employment contract in the 120 days before termination, must have at least 600 days of unemployment insurance premium in the last three years, and must apply in person or electronically within 30 days after termination. Any delay not caused by force majeure is deducted from the total entitlement period. If an incorrect exit code has been reported, the employee must apply in time with the termination notice and other evidence, and the procedure for correcting the Institution’s record and the code must be separately assessed.

Is a civil servant entitled to resign on the basis of this article?

No. For personnel under Article 4/A of Law No. 657 and most personnel under Article 4/B, Article 24 of Labour Law does not apply; the administrative application and administrative court rules apply.

Conclusion

Şua/health leave is a protective right to rest for entitled personnel working in controlled areas with ionising radiation, and it cannot be replaced by money while the employment contract continues. If the employer persistently fails to grant this right, or refuses a written request without a justified reason, this may, depending on the circumstances, be a breach of working conditions under Article 24(II)(f) of Labour Law No. 4857, which may found termination for just cause.

However, the correct question is not merely “was leave refused?”. The following questions must be answered together:

• Is the employee genuinely entitled, and how many days have accrued?
• When and how was the request made?
• Did the employer refuse the right, or only change the date?
• How long did the breach last and was it repeated?
• Were the 35-hour limit exceeded and were wages paid?
• Is there a concrete health and safety risk?
• Does the termination notice set out the real reasons?
• Has the six-working-day period under Article 26 of Labour Law been observed?

Final legal conclusion: Failure to grant şua leave may be a ground for just cause for termination; however, the correct approach is a file-based one that builds the chronology of entitlement, request, refusal, continuity, evidence and termination, not one that automatically treats it as just cause.

Confidentiality and legal information

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are assessed under the rules on attorney professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. Patient and employee health data must not be sent through insecure channels.

This article is intended for general legal information. No legal opinion or outcome guarantee is created without examination of the status of the employee, the legislative period, the device, the controlled area, the actual hours, the written requests, the employer’s reply, the health risk and the termination documents.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Legislation and official sources

• Law No. 3153 on Radiology, Radium and Electrotherapy and Other Physiotherapy Establishments
• Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionising Radiation and Radionuclides — April 13, 2023, Official Gazette 32162
• Labour Law No. 4857 — TBMM adopted text
• Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety — Legislation Information System
• Labour Courts Law No. 7036 — UYAP Legislation
• Law No. 7589 — TBMM adopted text
• Law No. 4447 on Unemployment Insurance — Legislation Information System
• İŞKUR — Unemployment benefit and current application conditions
• SGK — Insured person’s exit statement and termination codes
• Nuclear Regulatory Authority — reporting and complaint channels
• Ministry of Health — Legislation and inspection framework for radiology services

Court decisions

• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2016/972, K.2019/9865, May 6, 2019: full text of the decision.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2017/10772, K.2019/8028, April 8, 2019: transcription of the decision. The decision concerns annual leave and is supportive by analogy for health leave.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2015/30289, K.2019/3349, February 12, 2019: citation and assessment of the decision. The decision concerns annual leave.
• Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E.2021/211, K.2022/1228, October 4, 2022: citation of the decision, academic review. The decision concerns the general overtime limit.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, February 15, 2021: full text of the decision.
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2021/12186, K.2022/528, January 18, 2022: full text of the decision.
• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, May 27, 2025: accessible decision text.

Academic sources

• Miraç Şamil Pekşen, “İş Hukuku Boyutuyla Şua İzni”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2025/4, No. 87, pp. 1913–1942, DOI: 10.54752/ct.1629124: open-access PDF. In particular, pp. 1934–1935 assess non-grant of leave and Article 24(II)(f).
• Seda Yürekli, “Karar İncelemesi: Yıllık İkiyüzyetmiş Saati Aşan Fazla Çalışmanın Haklı Nedenle Feshe Etkisi”, Çalışma ve Toplum, 2026: open-access PDF. The work is not a direct source on şua leave; it is a supporting study on automatic just cause and working conditions.

---