What Is Şua Leave? Who Is Entitled to Şua Leave? 2026 Guide to Current Legislation and Practice

What is şua leave?

“Şua” is an older term meaning “ray”. In practice it is called “şua leave”, “radiation leave” or “ray leave”, although the concept used in the 2023 Regulation is health leave.

This leave is a special right to rest aimed at reducing the risks of ionising radiation to employees’ health. It is not an enhanced form of annual paid leave; it is a right separate from, and additional to, annual leave.

In its decisions under the former legislative regime, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation explained the purpose of the leave as removing the employee from the effects of radiation and protecting their health. The fact that the length of leave under the current Regulation increases step by step with actual work in the controlled area also reflects this protective purpose.

What are the legal bases of şua leave as of 2026?

Law No. 3153

Under Additional Article 1 of Law No. 3153 on Radiology, Radium and Electrotherapy and Other Physiotherapy Establishments, the weekly working time for places where diagnosis, treatment or research with ionising radiation is carried out, and for the personnel working in those jobs and procedures, is 35 hours. The law provides that dose limits, the measures to be taken and the periods to be spent on leave are to be determined by secondary legislation.

Law No. 657 on Civil Servants

Article 103 of Law No. 657 provides that personnel working with radioactive rays during their service are to be granted, in addition to their annual leave, one month of health leave each year. This provision is important for civil servants. However, the relationship between the phrase “one month” in the law and the table of actual hours in the 2023 Regulation is disputed in practice and in doctrine. The approach of the Court of Cassation towards private-sector employees must not be applied directly without examining the civil servant’s status and the concrete administrative act.

Regulation of 13 April 2023

The Regulation on Health Services Provided Using Ionising Radiation and Radionuclides was published in Official Gazette No. 32162 of 13 April 2023 by Presidential Decision No. 7077. Article 8 of the Regulation is the principal current provision on health leave.

Under the Regulation:

• Health leave is granted only to employees working in controlled areas where ionising radiation sources and radionuclides are used.
• The length of leave is determined from the EK-2 table according to the hours actually worked in controlled areas within one calendar year.
• For those who use mobile devices such as mobile X-ray or fluoroscopy, the actual time in controlled areas is also taken into account.
• Where the dose limit is exceeded, health leave is granted immediately.
• Leave cannot be divided, cannot be used consecutively across the change of year and cannot be carried over to another year.
• Periods spent on maternity, death, marriage and annual leave are not added to the calculation of actual work.

What did the Council of State’s 2025 decisions change in the current system?

The 12th Chamber of the Council of State reviewed the main provisions of the 2023 Regulation on health leave by way of an action for annulment on May 27, 2025, in decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739. The majority of the Chamber found lawful:

• linking health leave to actual work in a controlled area,
• determining the length of leave according to the EK-2 table,
• the inability to use the leave consecutively across the change of year and to carry it over to another year,
• the exclusion of periods spent on maternity, death, marriage and annual leave from the calculation of working time.

The majority reasoning stated that the controlled area, although it is in the same department as personnel who actually work with the radiation source, serves to distinguish personnel who do not perform that work directly, and that the actual-hours system is linked to the possibility of exposure and the protective purpose of the leave.

The dissenting opinion argued that Article 103 of Law No. 657 gives civil servants who work with radioactive rays during their service a one-month health leave, and that this right could not be reduced by regulation through a table linked to actual hours. The question for civil servants is therefore not merely “how many hours were worked?”; the hierarchy of norms between statute and regulation must also be assessed.

Legal limit of the decision: This decision was given by the 12th Chamber of the Council of State acting as a court of first instance. Whether it has been appealed, whether it has become final and whether there has been any review by the Plenary Assembly of the Administrative Chambers of the Council of State must be checked again on the date of publication through the official decision system. The conclusion that “the debate has completely ended” must not be stated until finality has been verified.

The decision does not directly resolve how the post-termination monetary equivalent of leave is to be calculated for private-sector employees. That question is examined separately under labour law, the Court of Cassation’s annual-leave analogy and the time application of the 2022–2023 regime.

Are health leave, the 35-hour weekly limit and the dose-excess leave the same right?

No. The rights and protective mechanisms that are frequently confused in practice are as follows:

In its norm-review decision E.2010/29, K.2010/90 of July 16, 2010, the Constitutional Court stated that the 35 hours in Law No. 3153 is the maximum weekly time, that dose limits may require shorter working, and that for civil servants annual leave, the one-month health leave and the leave arising from dose excess are different rights. The individual application decision of the Constitutional Court No. B. 2019/36519 concerns a concrete rights violation in relation to an earlier regulation on daily working time; it is not a decision that directly determines the current EK-2 leave calculation.

Which legislation applies to which periods?

The first step in a şua leave file is to divide the period of work into parts. The current Regulation cannot be applied retrospectively to the whole length of service.

Presidential Decision No. 4144, published in Official Gazette No. 31522 of 25 June 2021, repealed the 1939 Regulation. The first Regulation, which entered into force on 26 April 2022, was itself repealed by the new Regulation of the same name on 13 April 2023.

File strategy: A ten-year period of work must not be calculated with a single formula. For each period, the regulation in force, the area of work, the device used, the actual time and the leave records must be assessed separately.

How is health leave in the 2022 transition period assessed?

The transition from the fixed-period system to the EK-2 system based on actual working time under the Regulation of 26 April 2022 gave rise to the need for a special approach in respect of leave in 2022. In its letter No. E-95966346-449-512 dated May 12, 2022, the General Directorate of Health Services of the Ministry of Health adopted, in summary, the following method for the transition period:

• For personnel who used the one-month health leave under the former regulation between January 1, 2022 and April 26, 2022, leave for the same period is not granted again;
• the position of personnel who did not use leave during those dates is assessed according to the principles of the transition letter;
• the leave corresponding to the actual work performed in the supervised area between April 26, 2022 and December 31, 2022 is calculated according to the EK-2 table and granted within 2023;
• the change of regulation must not turn into a loss of rights for the personnel, avoiding the creation of duplicate leave.

The Ombudsman Institution, in an application in 2024, assessed the non-grant of the leave arising from the 2022 period despite the Ministry’s transition letter from the standpoint of fairness and the integrity of administration, and recommended that the leave be granted. The Ombudsman decision is not a court decision; however, it is important in showing the Ministry’s transition practice and the official approach that may be used in an administrative file.

2022 warning: It must not be concluded that “30 days were used in 2022” or “there is no leave for 2022” without determining the date on which the employee took leave in 2022 and the number of hours actually worked after April 26, 2022.

Who is entitled to şua leave?

Under the current Regulation, entitlement is determined not by a list of professions but by the actual conditions of work. For a sound assessment, four questions must be answered together.

Is the work carried out in a health institution or organisation?

The 2023 Regulation covers institutions and organisations providing health services using ionising radiation and radionuclides, the persons who receive that service, and the personnel working there. Radiation work outside health services may be subject to other occupational health and safety regulations; it must not be assumed automatically that the same health leave provision applies to such workers.

Is an ionising radiation source or radionuclide used?

Not every reference to “radiation” gives rise to health leave. The Regulation is based on work connected with ionising radiation sources and radionuclides. A person who works with methods that do not produce ionising radiation, such as ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging, is not entitled merely by reason of the name of the department. However, if the same person also works actually with X-ray, computed tomography, fluoroscopy or other ionising sources, those duties are assessed separately.

Is the work carried out in a controlled area?

Radiation areas may be divided into controlled areas and supervised areas according to the level and likelihood of exposure. The current Regulation links health leave to work in a controlled area. What matters is not the name of the department, but the classification of the area under the legislation and the actual duty of the employee in that area.

Has the employee actually worked in the controlled area?

The length of leave is calculated not merely by reference to the staff position or the letter of assignment, but by reference to the time actually spent in the controlled area. Actual time can be investigated through shift records, dosimeter records, device and patient procedure records, PACS/RIS, HBYS, automation data, on-call schedules and witness statements.

Which health workers may be entitled to şua leave?

The following professions and duties may benefit from health leave where the conditions of work are met:

• Radiology specialists and residents
• Medical imaging and radiology technicians and technologists
• Nuclear medicine specialists and staff working with radionuclides
• Radiation oncology staff
• Interventional radiology and angiography teams
• Health personnel who perform or regularly take part in procedures under fluoroscopy
• Personnel operating mobile X-ray or fluoroscopy units
• Persons who work actually with an ionising source in the oral, dental and maxillofacial radiology unit
• Physicians and auxiliary health personnel who actually work with C-arm fluoroscopy or similar ionising equipment in the operating theatre
• Other employees performing duties connected with a radiation source in a controlled area

This list is not a list of automatic entitlement. For example, a person who performs administrative duties in the radiology department but does not actually work in the controlled area cannot claim entitlement merely by reference to the department name. On the other hand, an employee whose staff title is not radiology may acquire an entitlement if they actually work with an ionising source in a controlled area.

How are the device, the area and the duty assessed together?

This table is not a definitive list of entitlement. The nature of the device, together with where the employee works, what duty they perform, for how long, and the classification of the area, is assessed as a whole.

Is the right lost if the employer has not kept a controlled-area record?

No. The failure of the employer or of the health institution to keep area classifications, radiation safety records or actual entry–exit data properly must not, in itself, produce a definitive result against the employee. However, the statement “I was in the radiology department” is not sufficient on its own either.

In such a case the following may be used together:

• the licence and use documents of the device,
• shielding and radiation safety records for the room and connected areas,
• the institution’s sketches of controlled and supervised areas,
• records of the radiation safety officer,
• device user logs and patient procedure data,
• dosimeter allocation and reading results,
• an expert examination by an expert witness with knowledge of the site

Whether a technical institutional opinion is necessary is assessed by the court according to the nature of the concrete dispute. It must not be stated that in every file an opinion from a particular institution is categorically required.

Do doctors, operating theatre staff and other physicians become entitled?

Yes, but the professional title alone is not sufficient. That a dentist personally operates the X-ray device, that operating theatre staff regularly take part in procedures under fluoroscopy, or that a physician performs procedures in a controlled area connected with ionising radiation must be established by concrete records.

In administrative and judicial practice the following criteria are important:

• whether the device produces ionising radiation;
• whether the area is classified as a controlled area;
• whether the employee operates the device or is present in the area during the procedure;
• the continuity of the duty and its actual hours;
• dosimeter and device procedure records;
• the employer’s risk assessment and radiation safety records.

Does a zero reading on the dosimeter remove the right to şua leave?

Not by itself, and not in every case. The Court of Cassation, in a dispute relating to a former period of work, held that a decision made without examining the dosimeter records, and without investigating the extent of the employee’s exposure in which procedures and for how long, was an inadequate examination.

The dosimeter record is an important technical piece of evidence; however, it must also be examined whether the device was issued to the correct person, whether it was used correctly, the measurement period, the integrity of the records, whether the employee actually carried the device, and whether it is consistent with other work records. A “zero” record does not by itself create an automatic loss or an automatic entitlement. Conversely, a zero dose record may create a strong piece of evidence against the employee where the employee worked in a separate room from the radiation source, only planned work, and there is no other evidence of presence in the controlled area during irradiation. The file that formed the subject of the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455 shows the importance of this distinction. Under the current system, the calculation of leave days is linked to the actual time in the controlled area independently of the measured dose quantity; however, the existence of actual work must still be proved by all the evidence.

How many days of şua leave are there, and how is the number calculated?

EK-2 of the 2023 Regulation provides one day of health leave for each 50-hour band:

The calculation is made on the basis of the calendar year. For example, a person who actually works 60 hours in a controlled area in the same calendar year gains two days of health leave; a person who works 740 hours gains fifteen days; a person who works 1,500 hours gains thirty days. The upper limit of the table is 30 days.

Since zero hours of work means that no actual work was performed, a person who has never worked cannot be given a day of leave merely on the basis of the entry “0–50” in the table. This result has also been identified in the 2025 academic work as a technical problem with the wording of the table.

How should the EK-2 health leave calculation tool be used?

The calculation tool on the page provides a preliminary calculation only for calendar years on and after April 13, 2023. The user may enter the annual total directly or enter separately the actual hours in the controlled area for each month. The logic is as follows:

If there is no actual work: 0 days If there is actual work: days earned = round up (annual actual hours ÷ 50) Result: at most 30 days

For example, 50 hours gives 1 day, more than 50 hours gives 2 days, 740 hours gives 15 days, and 1,451–1,500 hours gives 30 days. Entries exceeding 1,500 hours do not produce a new right beyond 30 days; the user is also shown a check warning concerning the 35-hour weekly limit, data duplication and the possibility of an incorrect record.

The tool must not treat a professional title or the whole duty roster as actual controlled-area work. Annual leave, reports, unpaid leave, reporting outside the controlled area and other periods in which no actual work is done must be separated by the user. The result is not a binding payslip, an expert calculation or a legal opinion; the legislative period, the classification of the area and the supporting records must be examined separately.

Which periods are excluded from actual working time?

The Regulation expressly provides that periods spent on maternity, death, marriage and annual leave are not included in the calculation of actual work in a controlled area. As a logical consequence of the actual-work criterion, sick reports, unpaid leave and periods spent outside the controlled area must also be separated on the basis of concrete records.

Where it is proved that overtime was actually performed in the controlled area in connection with an ionising source, the effect of that overtime on the calculation of health leave must be separately assessed. However, a breach of the 35-hour weekly limit may create a separate working-time and overtime dispute.

Are preparation, cleaning, calibration, on-call and remote reporting periods counted?

Actual-work calculation must not be reduced to the few minutes of irradiation during a patient examination; equally, the entire shift of an employee is not automatically counted as controlled-area work. Each activity must be classified according to where it takes place and its connection with the ionising source:

Periods in which no actual work is performed, such as sick reports, unpaid leave, birth, death, marriage and annual leave, together with public holidays, are not added to the hours unless actual controlled-area work was done on the day. If actual work was performed on a public holiday, it must not be ignored merely because the calendar shows a holiday; the actual work must be proved.

When and how is health leave granted?

Leave is granted in the calendar year following the year in which the actual hours were calculated. Under the Regulation health leave:

• cannot be divided;
• cannot be carried over to another year;
• cannot be used consecutively across the change of year;
• is granted separately from annual paid leave;
• must be granted immediately where the dose limit is exceeded.

The determination of the time of leave by the employer or the administration in view of the organisation of work must not result in the right never being granted. Where the employee unilaterally decides to take leave, the risk of unauthorised absence and of termination arises; for that reason, a written request and legal assessment must be made before a choice is taken.

Is health leave that is not used in the working year completely lost after 2023?

This is one of the most important issues of the current system, which has not yet been settled by a settled body of Court of Cassation case law. The Regulation expressly provides that health leave cannot be carried over to another year. This provision aims to ensure that leave is granted in good time and in line with its protective purpose.

By contrast, where the employer or administration does not itself fulfil its obligation and entirely fails to grant the leave, relying on the prohibition on carry-over to escape all responsibility may be inconsistent with the mandatory and protective nature of the right. For a worker, it can be strongly argued, under the former annual-leave analogy, that unused leave turns into a monetary claim on termination of the employment relationship.

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm’s legal assessment is as follows:

• The prohibition on carry-over is not a forfeiture period that authorises the employer not to grant the leave.
• Following the principle that a party may not benefit from its own breach, the employer cannot be released automatically from monetary liability merely because it failed to plan the leave in good time.
• However, since there is no settled Court of Cassation case law expressly establishing this result for the hours-based system of 2023, the claim must be justified by the protective nature of the right, the annual-leave analogy and the current principles of the Court of Cassation rather than presented as a settled rule of law.
• For public personnel, the monetary claim, the administrative application, the granting of leave in kind and the question of the competent court must be separately examined.

Essential distinction: The result “the leave cannot in fact be used in the following year” and the result “the employer’s past breach has no legal consequence” are not the same.

Can şua leave be deducted from annual leave?

No. Health leave is a right in addition to annual paid leave. As a rule, it is not possible to offset health leave against annual leave, or to abolish health leave on the ground that “the total leave has already been used”.

The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal in one decision rejected a claim because the employer produced şua leave documents for 28 days; however, the detailed grounds of appeal of the employee that the documents did not reflect the truth could not be examined as to time. For this reason, a signed document does not in every case constitute incontrovertible proof. If automation and patient procedure records on the dates in the document show actual work, the records must be assessed together.

Is the position of workers and civil servants the same?

Although the protective purpose of the right is similar, the legal status and routes of application are not the same.

Private-sector and public-sector workers

Disputes concerning workers subject to Labour Law No. 4857 are heard in the labour court. In monetary claims, compulsory mediation is required before a lawsuit is filed. The worker’s employment contract, pay structure, actual duty, period of work and leave records are examined.

Civil servants

For civil servants subject to Law No. 657, health leave is a personal right. A refusal of a leave request or its incomplete granting may amount to an administrative act. Applications, objections and time limits for action are subject to the rules of administrative justice. Applying to the labour court creates a risk of loss of rights on jurisdictional grounds.

There is a debate on the relationship between the one-month leave provision of Law No. 657 and the actual-hours table of the 2023 Regulation, relating to the hierarchy of norms and their application. Ombudsman decisions and Ministry letters may show practice, but they do not have the same legal weight as a court decision or a statutory provision. The majority and dissenting opinions of the Council of State decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739 both have to be considered, together with the finality of the decision and the grounds for the concrete administrative refusal.

Which administrative route should a public employee follow?

The first aim for public personnel is to determine the correct type of administrative application in accordance with the status of the employee and the existing act. Where leave has not been calculated at all, the granting of the right and the explanation of the records may be requested. Where there is an express refusal act, the annulment or amendment of that act may be requested. Where there are past financial or personnel consequences, their correction may be requested.

In the general framework:

• The notification of the written refusal decision must be preserved for the start of the period for bringing an action.
• Under Article 7 of the Administrative Procedure Law (İYUK), unless a different period is provided in a specific law, the general period for bringing an action before the administrative court is sixty days.
• Where no act has yet been made, Article 10 of İYUK applies; where there is a wish to annul, withdraw, amend or make a new decision in respect of an existing act, Article 11 of İYUK is assessed according to its conditions.
• For applications under Articles 10 and 11 of İYUK, the thirty-day response/implied refusal regime and the start, suspension and recommencement of the period for bringing an action are different matters. Choosing the wrong type of application or waiting indefinitely may cause loss of rights.
• The court must not be chosen before the place of duty, the authority that made the act, the date of notification and the rules on competence have been determined.
• Where the leave period is running, there is a risk to health or there is a clear breach of the law, the conditions for a stay of execution must be separately assessed.
• An application to the Ombudsman Institution or an internal institutional correspondence must not be treated as a general route that automatically suspends the statutory period for bringing an action.

This section is a general process map. In a concrete file, the specific legislation, the date of application, the act of refusal and the form of notification must be examined before any calculation of time limits is made.

Contract personnel and doctors working through a company

The name of the contract is not decisive on its own. The fact that a doctor forms a company and issues invoices does not necessarily transform the relationship into a commercial one; criteria such as dependence, the working arrangement, remuneration, supervision and integration into the organisation are investigated. Conversely, where there is genuinely independent provision of services, the provisions on labour claims may not apply.

What happens if şua leave is not granted?

While the employment relationship continues, the principal obligation is to grant the leave in practice. Ordinarily it is not possible to remove the protective right of rest by paying money.

Where the employer does not grant leave, the employee may request in writing:

• an explanation of the actual controlled-area hours,
• the calculation of the leave day earned,
• planning of the leave in accordance with the Regulation,
• correction of incomplete or contradictory records.

Depending on the seriousness and continuity of the breach, a termination for just cause under Article 24 of the Labour Law may come into question. However, termination is not automatic. Written requests, the employer’s reply, the duration of the work, other breaches of working conditions and occupational health and safety, and the content of the termination notice are assessed together.

Şua leave is also an occupational health and safety obligation

The failure to grant şua leave is not merely a dispute over pay and leave. Under Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, the employer is obliged to prevent occupational risks, establish the necessary organisation, carry out a risk assessment, consider the fitness of employees for work from the point of view of health and safety, and ensure health surveillance.

In relation to work with radiation, these obligations cover in particular:

• correct classification of controlled and supervised areas;
• monitoring of actual exposure and time spent at work;
• proper provision, use and record-keeping of personal dosimeters;
• radiation safety, risk assessment and training of employees;
• health surveillance and records of the workplace physician;
• immediate protective action in case of exceeding the dose limit or unusual exposure;
• timely calculation and actual granting of health leave.

The right to refuse work in situations of serious and imminent danger under Article 13 of Law No. 6331 is a different institution from an employee’s own decision to take şua leave. The statutory conditions and application procedure for refusing work exist. For this reason, an employee who stays away from work without a written request and a concrete risk assessment may face a claim of unauthorised absence.

Where the dose limit is exceeded, the ordinary leave plan is not awaited

Under Article 8 of the 2023 Regulation, where the dose to which an employee working in a controlled area has been exposed exceeds the limits in the legislation, the health institution or organisation must grant health leave immediately. This situation requires an urgent protective intervention, which differs from the ordinary EK-2 leave to be used in the following year.

Where there is a suspicion of exceeding the dose limit:

• the dosimeter result and the measurement period must be verified;
• the event, device and shift records must be preserved;
• the assessment must be made by the radiation safety officer and the workplace physician;
• it must be determined, from the standpoint of health and safety, whether the employee can continue in their duties;
• the necessary institutional notifications and health examinations must be carried out;
• where a health injury has occurred, the occupational accident or occupational disease legislation must be separately assessed.

Exceeding the dose limit does not in every case establish a definitive occupational disease or occupational accident. The way the event occurred, the health effect and the relevant notification conditions must be separately examined.

Pregnant and breastfeeding employees require a special risk assessment

A pregnancy or a period of breastfeeding may give rise to protective regulations that differ from health leave. The employer must carry out a special assessment in accordance with the occupational health and safety and radiation protection provisions, on the basis of the employee’s notification and the risk of the duty.

In particular:

• the risk of radiation and contamination to the foetus or baby;
• whether the duty in the controlled area can be continued;
• temporary change of duty or adaptation of working conditions;
• health surveillance and personal dose monitoring;
• the fact that maternity, breastfeeding and health leave are separate rights

must be assessed in the concrete case. Periods spent on maternity and annual leave are not included in the actual-work calculation under the Regulation.

When does unused şua leave turn into money?

In its decisions E.2020/5049, K.2021/5141 and E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation assessed şua leave as a rest right analogous to annual leave, and accepted that it does not turn into money while the employment relationship continues, but becomes a claim for pay on termination.

The consequences of this approach are as follows:

• An employee cannot remove the protective right by requesting “money instead of leave” while working.
• Whether the employer’s payment made during the work ends its duty to grant leave is disputed.
• When the employment contract ends, the monetary equivalent of unused leave arises.
• Whether the employee was dismissed or resigned is not, on its own, decisive as to whether a leave claim arises.

Court of Cassation decisions that directly resolve how the 2022–2023 hours-based system is reflected in monetary claims on termination are still limited. For this reason, each service year, transition provisions and questions of acquired rights must be separately examined.

What if the employee is still in a reinstatement lawsuit: when can a şua leave claim be made?

In the case decided by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, decision E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, T.04.11.2025, the employee sued for annual leave and şua leave while a reinstatement lawsuit was pending after the first termination. Following the reinstatement decision and the application, the first termination was eliminated; the subsequent valid termination occurred on a later date when the employer did not reinstate the employee. Since the şua leave claim matures on termination, the lawsuit brought before the actual termination date was held premature.

For this reason:

• the filing of a reinstatement lawsuit,
• the employee’s application for reinstatement within the statutory period,
• whether the employer reinstates,
• the date on which the valid termination occurred

must be determined before a lawsuit is brought for a leave claim arising from termination. It should not be assumed that a later amendment of the claim will make valid a claim which did not arise originally.

Is a claim for leave that was used but whose pay was incomplete the same as leave that was never granted?

No. In a case where health leave was not granted at all, the breach of the right to rest and the conversion into a monetary equivalent on termination are debated. Where the employee actually used health leave but the pay for that leave period was not paid, or was paid incompletely, the maturity and the start of interest on the wage debt may be assessed separately according to the payment period. The type of claim, the mediation application and the calculation of limitation must be framed with this distinction in mind.

Do retirement, re-employment and intermittent periods affect the calculation?

Termination on retirement, re-employment with the same employer, successive fixed-term contracts at intervals and transfers of the workplace should not, in each case, be treated as an actual termination merely because of an SGK exit code. Whether work was actually interrupted, whether the leave for the earlier period was paid, the independence of the new contract and the genuine intention of the parties must be investigated. Where there is an actual termination, maturity and limitation may arise separately for each period; where the employment relationship is continuous, artificially dividing the whole period may be wrong.

On which wage is the şua leave claim calculated?

The established approach of the Court of Cassation in disputes under the former regime is that the claim is calculated not on the historical wage of each year in which the right to leave arose, but on the last wage as at the date on which the employment contract ended.

However, the concept of “last wage” must be determined carefully:

• A low basic wage on the payslip is not sufficient on its own where it does not reflect the actual pattern of payment.
• Guaranteed wage and regular performance or bonus payments may form part of the wage.
• For variable pay, an appropriate period average may be required.
• It cannot be said that every meal, travel, private health insurance or social benefit is automatically included in the calculation.
• The “dressed” wage method used for severance pay must not be copied into the şua leave claim without justification.

The Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 shows the importance of the guaranteed wage together with the regular variable pay in determining the actual wage. The approving decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 also reveals the importance of assessing automation and wage records together in the concrete file; however, it does not establish an independent principle that all şua claims must necessarily be calculated on a fully “dressed” wage including every benefit.

The legal assessment of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on the calculation of the şua leave wage

According to the view adopted by Güneş & Güneş Law Firm in its practice of labour law and in its legal opinion on the subject, taking only the amount shown on the payslip as the “base wage” as the basis of the calculation of the şua leave claim may not reflect the real income of doctors and health personnel who work with a guaranteed wage together with performance, earned pay, bonus or commission components, particularly in private hospitals.

The legal assessment of the Firm rests on the following principles:

• Şua leave is a rest right that cannot be replaced by money while the employment relationship continues. Since it turns into a monetary claim on termination of the contract, the wage to be used in the calculation must be determined according to the approach developed by the Court of Cassation by analogy with annual leave: the last real wage as at the date of termination.
• The last real wage must be determined not merely by the name of the payment or its appearance on the payslip, but by examining the employment contracts, bank movements, payslips, earned-pay statements, automation data, bonus accruals and the payment practice that shows continuity.
• Where performance, bonus, commission or earned pay is paid in addition to the guaranteed wage as the regular counterpart of work, it forms the variable component of the wage and must be taken into account in the last real wage using an appropriate period average. Even where part of a doctor’s income is transferred to his or her own company against an invoice, that amount cannot be excluded from the calculation without examining the real nature of the relationship between the parties and whether the payment is the counterpart of work performed.
• By contrast, the technical content of the “dressed wage” concept in the calculation of severance pay must not be carried automatically into the şua leave claim. Each benefit, such as meals, travel, private health insurance or social assistance, may be included only if its nature, continuity and the possibility of including it in the legal calculation of the relevant claim are justified separately.
• Accordingly, the correct method is not to choose in advance one of the two extremes of “the basic wage alone” and “every benefit, dressed wage included”; it is to establish, by evidence, the fixed and regular variable wage components that constitute the employee’s real last wage on the date of termination.

The calculation model specified in the Firm’s legal opinion is as follows, on the condition that the payment structure is documented to consist of these components:

Last real gross monthly wage = fixed gross guaranteed wage on the date of termination + monthly average of the regular variable wages paid in the appropriate reference period looking backwards from the date of termination Daily calculation wage = last real gross monthly wage ÷ 30 Şua leave claim = number of unused şua leave days × daily calculation wage

In typical files where premium, performance, commission or earned pay varies by month, the Firm’s opinion adopts the twelve-month payment period before termination as the basis. However, the twelve-month period is not an invariable provision of law in every dispute. Where the period of work is shorter, the premium system has recently changed, there is an unusual single payment, or the payroll is incomplete, a real and representative reference period must be determined in a manner that is open to expert scrutiny. When the expression “gross dressed wage” is used in this text, it does not mean that all money and benefits measurable in money, as in severance pay, are automatically added; it means that the fixed and variable wage components that constitute the regular counterpart of work and the last real wage must be proved.

A concrete gross wage calculation example

The following scenario has been prepared only to make the method of calculation visible:

In this example, taking the regular variable wage into account changes the gross result by TL 30,000. However, whether the difference is recoverable depends on proving, through bank movements, premium accruals, payslips, the contract and the earned-pay records, that the TL 60,000 component is the regular counterpart of work. The amounts are gross examples shown without applying taxes, social security deductions, interest, limitation, set-off or procedural claim limits; they do not constitute a result in any concrete file or a guarantee of recovery.

This opinion is supported by the guaranteed-wage and regular variable-wage approach in the Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528. The approving decision E.2024/8203, K.2024/11882 also shows that, in a concrete case, automation, premium and wage records may lawfully be assessed together. Because the second decision is an approving decision, however, it must not be asserted that it establishes a single binding “dressed gross wage formula” for every file.

Practical result of the Firm: The debate in a şua leave dispute must not be reduced to the question “bare or dressed?”. The real structure of the employment relationship and the payment model must first be determined; then, on the basis of concrete and auditable records, the fixed wage on the date of termination and the regular variable counterparts of work must be calculated.

When does the limitation period begin?

According to the current Court of Cassation approach, since a şua leave claim does not turn into money while the employment relationship continues, the limitation period also starts with the termination of the employment contract. The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in decision E.2020/5953, K.2021/3837 of February 15, 2021, expressly stated that for a şua claim limitation must be assessed from the date of termination and not from each year of accrual of the right, as with overtime.

For the claim the general five-year period is taken into account. However, the date of termination, the acts that interrupt or suspend limitation, the mediation process and the proper assertion of the claim must be separately examined in the concrete file.

Some content still accessible on Google repeats the approach of the old decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, E.2009/36989, K.2012/5590, that limitation runs from each year of leave. That approach has been changed by the later decisions of 2021.

Why is the change of limitation of 25 October 2017 important?

Additional Article 3, inserted into Labour Law No. 4857 by Law No. 7036, provides a five-year limitation period for annual paid leave pay arising from the employment contract and for the compensation listed in the article. Transitional Article 8 regulates the entry into force and transitional principles of the amendment.

Since the şua leave claim is not expressly listed in Labour Law, the foundation of the Court of Cassation’s annual-leave analogy and the five-year approach must be made concrete. Whether the termination date falls before or after October 25, 2017 may lead to different results in terms of the Code of Obligations in force at that date and the transitional arrangements.

For this reason, limitation cannot be calculated merely by looking at the years of work. At least the following dates must be determined:

• the date on which the employment contract ended;
• the date on which the claim matured;
• the date of a formal notice or of the employer’s acknowledgment of the debt;
• the dates of the mediation application and the final minutes;
• the date of the lawsuit, the increase of the claim or the amendment.

Under Article 3(17) of Law No. 7036, limitation is suspended from the application to the mediation office until the date on which the final minutes are drawn up, and the period of forfeiture does not run.

Mediation application: the şua leave claim must be expressly stated

Before a lawsuit is brought in labour and compensation claims, compulsory mediation must be sought. The şua leave claim must be described as clearly as possible in the application form and in the final minutes:

• “the unused şua/health leave pay claim”;
• the relevant periods of work;
• any dispute about the actual wage, premium and performance;
• the claim for interest and default;
• annual leave and claims for overtime arising from radiation work, which are different from şua leave,

each must be shown separately. A general expression such as “all labour claims” or “leave claim” alone may create unnecessary procedural argument about the scope of the condition precedent to litigation.

Which interest applies to a şua leave claim?

Views differ on interest. Some academic works and older chamber decisions have argued for the highest deposit interest rate. By contrast, in its decision E.2016/2547, K.2019/12571, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation did not regard the şua leave claim as a wide wage within the meaning of Article 34 of the Labour Law and concluded that statutory interest should apply.

A party must be placed in default for interest to start. The formal notice, the mediation application and the lawsuit claim are therefore important. The type of interest and the start date must be determined according to the facts of the file.

Who must prove that şua leave was granted?

The worker must first show that they worked in the relevant work and period within the scope of the right. The burden of proving that the leave was granted in accordance with the law rests with the employer, who keeps the leave records. In şua files, however, proof is not limited to a single document.

Critical evidence

• employment contract and job description;
• diploma, title and assignment letters;
• classification of controlled areas and radiation safety records;
• personal dosimeter reports;
• shift, on-call and attendance schedules;
• PACS/RIS imaging and reporting records;
• HBYS and patient procedure records;
• hospital automation entry–exit and procedure times;
• Medula records;
• device use and maintenance records;
• leave forms, leave registers and payslips;
• internal e-mail and correspondence;
• witness statements of colleagues who worked in the same unit.

Why are NDK authorisation, licence and inspection records important?

Records of the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NDK) may provide strong objective data to test the defences of a health institution that “the device did not produce ionising radiation”, “the area was not a controlled area” or “no radiation application was carried out in this department”. Historic documents may refer to the Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK); current applications are carried out through the NDK authorisation system.

In a concrete file, the following records in particular should be investigated:

• the scope, licence, permit and approval for the radiation facility or application, and their dates of validity;
• the type, make and model of the device, serial number, source information and location within the institution;
• the approved layout plan, shielding information, radiation measurement reports and area classification records;
• the radiation protection programme, the appointment of the radiation protection officer and the records of the radiation safety committee;
• the personal dosimetry programme, employee lists, training records and task authorisations;
• acceptance, quality control, maintenance, fault, calibration and use records of the device;
• NDK inspection reports, non-conformity notices and corrective action documents.

These documents may show the legal and technical status of the device and the area; however, they do not in themselves prove how many hours a particular employee was in the controlled area each day. NDK records must be assessed together with the access cards, shift records, PACS/RIS, HBYS, device logs, dosimetry and witness statements. Similarly, the failure of an employer to carry out the area classification or licensing obligations does not of itself remove the actual radiation risk and the status of the controlled area; the physical conditions and all the technical records are examined.

The employee must not access an institutional system for which they have no authorisation or copy documents without authority. Records may be requested from the employer or administration in writing; if they are not provided, production of documents under Article 219 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), evidence preservation under Article 400 et seq. HMK, or the sending of a court letter to the NDK and the relevant institutions during the proceedings may be requested.

What if the leave document and the automation record conflict?

In Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber decision E.2021/12186, K.2022/528 it was accepted that if the hospital automation records show actual work on dates on which the employer claims leave was granted, those days must not be deducted from the leave calculation. For this reason a signed leave document must not be treated as sufficient on its own without investigating the claim that there was a patient procedure, device use or shift work on the same dates.

Medula records also may not show the whole period of work on their own. The physician’s reporting, consultation, on-call, preparation and post-procedure duties must be assessed together with other digital records.

How can digital records be preserved before they are lost?

Hospital automation, PACS/RIS, HBYS, device logs and user activity are subject to the retention and archive policies of institutions. If a dispute arises and the detailed records are not requested promptly, they may be deleted or only summary data may remain accessible.

Depending on the circumstances of the concrete case, the following may be considered:

• written notice to the employer or institution requesting that specific records be preserved;
• a request for evidence preservation under Article 400 et seq. of the HMK, for evidence the loss or substantial difficulty of which is likely if it is not immediately fixed;
• a request for production of documents in the hands of the other party under Article 219 et seq. of the HMK;
• the sending of court letters to hospitals and third-party institutions;
• obtaining electronic records not merely as screenshots but with the source system, user, date and time, type of procedure and, where possible, a verifiable export;
• placing in the file only the part of the patient health records relevant to the dispute, having regard to confidentiality and proportionality.

Proof warning: A subsequently prepared Excel table or an unsigned screenshot does not have the same probative force as an unalterable record in the source system. It must be possible to verify who produced the data, from which system and on what date.

How can evidence be extracted in a way that complies with the KVKK and preserves its probative force?

PACS, RIS, HBYS, Medula and patient procedure records may contain personal or special-category personal data because of patient names, identity numbers, protocol numbers, dates of birth, contact details, diagnoses, images and DICOM metadata. Although the necessity of establishing, exercising or protecting a right may create a lawful basis for processing under Articles 5 and 6 of the KVKK, that basis does not give the employee unrestricted access, bulk downloading or disclosure for other purposes. Lawful acquisition, necessity, data minimisation, proportionality, secure transfer and limited retention must all be ensured together.

KVKK-compliant method of evidence extraction: It is preferable first to have the record produced by the employer or through the court. If the employee wishes to use a record to which they have lawful access by reason of their duties, the source record must not be altered; for the copy prepared for the dispute, the patient’s name and surname, identity number, protocol number, date of birth, telephone, address, diagnosis and image/DICOM fields identifying the patient must be obscured or securely anonymised. Only the type of procedure, date and time, device, institutional unit and the user or staff identity showing actual work should remain visible.

The safe sequence of practice is as follows:

• Do not enter an unauthorised system; patient records outside the scope of one’s duties must not be investigated or downloaded in bulk.
• The source of the evidence, the date of its creation, the name of the system and the method of access must be explained in a separate record, and the areas that have been obscured must be listed.
• The integrity of the source record must be preserved; the masked copy to be submitted to the court may be linked to the original record, but must be kept closed to third parties.
• If patient identity is genuinely necessary for resolving the dispute, a request should be made to the court for a court letter, a confidentiality measure, limited access or presentation in a sealed envelope, rather than unilateral and open disclosure.
• Documents must not be sent by personal e-mail, open cloud accounts or WhatsApp or other uncontrolled channels; a secure lawyer communication channel must be used.
• Only the necessary record period and the necessary fields should be submitted to the case file; irrelevant patient records must not be added.

Unauthorised acquisition or disclosure of personal data may give rise to liability under the KVKK, the employment contract, professional discipline and criminal law, depending on the concrete conduct. The intention “I will bring a lawsuit” therefore does not by itself make every method of obtaining data lawful. The current guidance of the Personal Data Protection Authority also indicates that special-category data may be processed where it is necessary for the protection of a right, but that the necessity must be substantiated and it must be assessed whether a less intrusive route exists.

What are the principal defences that may be raised by the employer or administration?

In a claim for şua leave, the opposing party usually raises the following defences:

• the employee did not work in a controlled area;
• the device used did not emit ionising radiation;
• the dosimeter records did not show exposure;
• the actual work or the hours could not be proved;
• the health leave was granted in accordance with the law;
• the leave documents were signed by the employee;
• the claim was calculated for the wrong period or with the wrong number of days;
• the employee was an independent service provider, not an employee;
• the lawsuit was brought in the wrong judicial branch;
• no claim was made in the mediation application;
• the conditions for limitation or default were not met;
• irregular or social-nature payments were wrongly included in the wage calculation.

Each of these defences must be answered with documents and technical records. A file based only on the professional title or witness statements may be insufficient against a health institution that has digital work records.

Liability of the principal employer, subcontractor and the hospital operator

Radiology and imaging services in some health institutions may be provided through a separate company, a subcontractor or a service procurement model. In such a case, responsibility must not be determined merely by looking at the name of the company that issues the payroll.

The following elements must be examined together:

• the party to the employment contract and the SGK employer;
• who gives the work instructions;
• who makes the shift and leave plan;
• who manages the device and the controlled area;
• the statutory conditions of the principal employer–subcontractor relationship;
• whether there is a sham or apparent service procurement;
• joint liability and periods of claim;
• the effect of a change of workplace or service provider on the employment relationship.

A transfer of the workplace or change of the hospital company’s name does not automatically remove the records of unused şua leave. The date of transfer, the periods of responsibility of the employers, uninterrupted work and earlier payments must be separately examined.

Does a release, a payroll record or a “şua pay made” entry end the right?

Not always. Under Article 420 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), for a release of a worker’s claim against the employer to be valid, in summary, the following must be satisfied:

• it must be in writing;
• at least one month must have passed from the date on which the employment contract ended;
• the type and amount of the claim must be expressly stated;
• payment must be made in full according to the amount due and through a bank.

A release that does not meet these conditions is absolutely void. Where a payment has been made, its set-off or receipt effect may be discussed only to the extent of the amount actually paid.

The mere statement “şua pay” or “şua fee” on the payslip does not prove that the leave was actually used. Whether the payment made during the employment relationship replaces the protective right of rest, the nature of the payment and whether there was actual work on the same dates must be separately investigated.

What route should be followed in a şua leave dispute?

Determine the status of the employee

Establish whether you are a worker, a civil servant, a contract employee or an independent service provider. The competent authority varies with this distinction.

Divide the period of work into legislative periods

Divide the period of work by reference to June 25, 2021, April 26, 2022 and April 13, 2023. Do not apply a single day count to the whole length of service.

Document the controlled area and device information

Establish the classification of the area, the type of device, radiation safety documents and the actual duties.

Recalculate the actual hours

Do not rely merely on shifts and attendance records. Compare PACS/RIS, HBYS, automation, device and patient procedure records.

Compare leave documents with actual work

Investigate whether there was a procedure, report or on-call record on dates recorded as leave.

Define the written request and the default strategy

If the employment relationship continues, request that the leave be granted. If termination has occurred, frame the claim, interest and mediation requests correctly.

Check the competent court and time limits

For workers, compulsory mediation and the labour court apply; for civil servants, the administrative application and administrative court apply.

Determine on the basis of concrete records whether to bring an uncertain claim or a partial lawsuit

The type of lawsuit for a şua leave claim is not the same in every file. In its decision E.2015/22-3406, K.2019/558, T.14.05.2019 of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation, it was stated that where the determination of the remaining şua leave and the actual wage depends on records to be presented by the employer, and the worker has no document in hand showing these data, the claim may be accepted as uncertain in the concrete case. The decision does not treat all şua leave claims as categorically uncertain; it takes as its basis the worker’s access to information and documents at the date of the lawsuit.

An uncertain-claim lawsuit may be defended as having legal interest particularly in the following cases:

• where the actual hours in the controlled area are only in the employer’s system;
• where the dates and duration of the leave used are disputed;
• where the actual wage, premium or performance amounts cannot be determined without the employer’s records;
• where there is a contradiction between leave forms and automation records;
• where there are several employers or a variable working model.

By contrast, where the employee is able objectively to determine the number of days earned, the leave used and the last wage, the uncertain-claim lawsuit may face an objection of absence of legal interest. The choice between a partial lawsuit, an uncertain claim, an increase of the claim and an amendment must be made together with the consequences for limitation and interest.

In the case decided by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, decision E.2022/5703, K.2022/6472, T.25.05.2022, the earlier reversal was complied with and the claimant was accepted as being able to determine their own period of work, wage and leave; the procedural result was therefore preserved in the sense that the şua leave claim could not be made the subject of an uncertain-claim lawsuit. Read together with the General Assembly decision, the correct question is not “is the şua claim uncertain as a type of claim?”, but “with which objective records can the claimant determine the number of days and the calculation wage at the date of the lawsuit?”

Keep the mediation and litigation claims separate

A claim for şua leave pay, annual leave pay, overtime for work exceeding 35 hours a week, bonuses, severance pay and other claims that may arise from health and safety breaches are different legal claims even if they arise from the same events. In the mediation and lawsuit petitions the basis, period, type of interest and start date of each claim must be established separately.

Example of a claim statement for a mediation application

“The applicant claims the gross wage claim for the health (şua) leave earned for actual work carried out in the controlled area in which services were provided using ionising radiation sources/radionuclides during the period [period of work] and not used, which became a monetary claim on the termination of the employment contract on [date of termination], to be calculated on the basis of the last real wage and the regular variable wage components on the date of termination, and to be paid together with statutory interest from the date of default. The actual hours in the controlled area, the used and unused leave days, the PACS/RIS/HBYS and device user records, the shift and on-call schedules, the leave records, the dosimetry data and the wage and premium documents are in the employer’s hands; the amount of the claim will therefore be fixed after the records have been produced.”

This example must not be used unchanged in every file. The period of work, the termination, the parties, the type of claim, the start of interest, the 2021–2023 transitional regime, the status of the employee as worker or civil servant and other claims must be made concrete. If there are claims for annual leave, overtime, premiums or compensation, each must be shown expressly and separately in the mediation application.

Example of a notice requiring record preservation and production

“For the resolution of the dispute concerning my ionising-radiation work and my health/şua leave carried out in the controlled area in connection with my employment, I request that the shift, on-call, attendance and card-entry records for the period [date range], the PACS/RIS/HBYS/Medula user and procedure logs, the device use and maintenance records, the personal dosimetry results, the controlled-area classification and the NDK authorisation/licence/permit/approval and inspection documents, the leave forms and leave registers, the wage payslips, bank payment lists and premium/performance/earned-pay records be preserved without deletion, alteration or overwriting; and that, in any copies to be given to me, personal and special-category personal data concerning third parties be masked and the records be presented in an auditable form showing the source system, date and time, user and type of procedure.”

The addressee of the notice, the names of the records, the risk of retention and the period requested must be adapted to the concrete case. This text does not request that the employer hand over all patient records directly to the employee; it aims at the preservation of the records, protecting the data of third parties and the proper production of the part relevant to the dispute. If there is a risk of loss, the notice alone should not be relied on; evidence preservation and production of documents must be assessed without delay.

Documents to be prepared before a lawsuit

• Identity document and documents showing the status of worker or civil servant
• Employment contract, additional protocols and job descriptions
• SGK service statement and payslips
• Bank wage movements and premium records
• Dosimeter results
• Controlled area and radiation safety documents
• Shift, on-call and attendance schedules
• PACS/RIS, HBYS, Medula and automation records
• Leave request letters and replies of the employer or administration
• Leave forms and examples from the leave register
• Termination notice, formal notice and mediation minutes
• Names of witnesses who know the actual work in the same unit
• Accessible documents on the subcontract or service procurement contract
• Release, waiver, settlement or payment protocols
• Records showing transfer of the workplace, change of company name and change of employer

Preservation of records: Detailed digital records in hospital systems may be subject to specific retention policies. When a dispute is likely, it must be determined promptly which records are to be requested, from whom and by what procedure.

Common misconceptions about şua leave

Probable legal assessment according to example cases

To what extent can Court of Cassation decisions be used under the current Regulation?

Most of the Court of Cassation’s decisions on şua leave arose from disputes in which the period of work was subject to the 1939 Regulation. These decisions provide guidance on questions such as:

• the leave being a protective right of rest;
• its being separate from annual leave;
• its not being converted into money while working;
• its conversion into a monetary claim on termination on the basis of the last wage;
• limitation running from termination;
• the comparison of leave documents with records of actual work.

However, consequences such as a fixed four-week period, continuous work, and the former definitions of dose and area cannot be transferred directly to the current Regulation. The EK-2 system of the 2023 Regulation has not yet become a settled body of Court of Cassation case law in all its aspects.

What practical results follow from the Court of Cassation decisions of 2025–2026?

A substantial part of these decisions consists of approval of a regional court of appeal decision as being in conformity with procedure and law. For this reason, each reasoning of a lower court must not be presented as though it had been adopted by the Court of Cassation as an independent and general principle.

What work does Güneş & Güneş Law Firm carry out in these files?

Güneş & Güneş Law Firm, based in Antalya, has provided legal services since 1999. In şua leave files the work is not limited to calculating the number of days. Depending on the circumstances of the concrete case, it may include:

• analysis of the employment status and the competent court;
• separation of the legislative periods;
• assessment of the controlled area and device;
• examination of dosimeter and hospital digital records;
• comparison of leave documents with records of actual work;
• analysis of the actual wage and variable pay;
• preparation of mediation and lawsuit claims;
• legal and arithmetical review of expert reports;
• assessment of administrative applications and lawsuits for public personnel;
• review of radiation safety and health surveillance documents under Law No. 6331;
• preparation of a strategy for evidence preservation, production of documents and preservation of digital records;
• assessment of principal employer–subcontractor, workplace transfer and release problems.

The result of each file depends on the employee’s status, the legislative period, the evidence and the defences of the opposing party. No guarantee of result can be given.

The main approach adopted by the Firm’s legal opinion

In the legal opinion of Güneş & Güneş Law Firm on şua leave files, three separate but connected dimensions are addressed:

• The nature of the right and maturity: Health leave must be granted while work continues; unused leave must turn into a monetary claim for the worker when the employment contract ends.
• Limitation: Because the monetary claim matures on termination, the five-year limitation period must, under the current Court of Cassation approach, run from the date of termination.
• Actual wage and proof: The last wage must not be limited to the root figure on the payslip; the guaranteed wage, regular variable payments and the bank, earned-pay and hospital automation records that verify them must be examined together. Where there was actual work on days recorded as leave, the material accuracy of the leave documents must separately be tested.

This approach is not an abstract formula that produces an automatic result in every file. It is a structured method of examination, applied through the legislative period, the status of the personnel, the wage model and the digital work records.

Hospital compliance checklist for şua leave

Health institutions should carry out regular checks in every calendar year, not only after a dispute has arisen:

• Are the classifications of controlled and supervised areas up to date?
• Is the list of personnel working in the controlled area consistent with changes of duty?
• Can actual working hours be verified by device and automation records?
• Are dosimeters correctly issued to the right persons and regularly monitored?
• Has the EK-2 calculation been correctly made at the end of the calendar year?
• Are health leaves planned within the same year, without interruption?
• Do leave documents conflict with patient and device procedure records?
• Is there a written emergency procedure for exceeding the dose limit?
• Is a special risk assessment carried out for pregnant and breastfeeding employees?
• Are the recording and leave responsibilities of subcontracted personnel clear in both contract and practice?
• Are the retention, access and KVKK processes for digital records in accordance with the legislation?
• Are the payment, release and mediation processes on termination consistent with the real wage and leave records?

Frequently asked questions

As a radiologist, am I automatically entitled to şua leave?

No. The title is a strong starting indicator, but it must be established that you actually worked with an ionising source in a controlled area and for how long. Periods of administrative duty, remote reporting or work with non-ionising devices may be separated.

Can health leave be earned before a full year has passed?

The current Regulation has no one-year seniority requirement. Actual work in a controlled area within a calendar year may give rise to leave under the EK-2 table. Disputes concerning the former period are assessed according to the legislation on the date of the event.

I signed a leave form, but I worked on that day: what happens?

If actual work is proved, the question whether the document reflects the facts may be debated. The leave dates must be compared with the PACS/RIS, HBYS, automation, shift and patient procedure records.

My dosimeter records are with the employer: can I sue?

Yes, but the records must be brought to the court and it must be determined where they are held. The choice between an uncertain claim and a partial lawsuit must be made according to the information you can access and the scope of the records held by the employer.

If the employer pays money instead of leave, is the right lost?

While the employment relationship continues, payment in place of leave does not, as a rule, replace the protective purpose. The nature of the payment, the payslip explanation and whether actual work was performed must be separately investigated. The post-termination set-off debate is decided on the concrete payment.

Can I claim the unused şua leave pay if I resigned myself?

The manner of termination on its own does not prevent the unused leave from converting into a monetary claim under the former regime. However, the post-2023 period and the actual payment and release records must be examined separately. For this reason the date of resignation, the wage level, the leave used and the legislative period must be assessed together.

Can I simply stop going to work if the leave is not granted?

That course is high-risk. Unilateral determination of the time of leave may lead to an allegation of unauthorised absence. The first steps should be a written request, collection of records and a legal assessment of the strategy for the leave and termination.

What if I am a civil servant working in a public hospital: do I follow the same route as a private hospital employee?

No. For a civil servant, the administrative application and administrative court apply to the leave dispute; for a worker, compulsory mediation and the labour court apply to monetary claims. The status of contract personnel must be separately examined.

Are my earlier years of work calculated at 28 or 30 days?

There is no single answer. Under the regulation of the period up to June 25, 2021, the rule was four weeks, that is 28 days. For periods after 2022 and 2023, the actual-hours table applies. The transitional period must be separately examined.

Is the expert calculation in a şua leave claim final?

No. An expert report may be open to objection for reasons such as the wrong legislative period, an incorrect number of days, incomplete digital records, the wrong wage component, actual work on leave days or the wrong interest.

Are all my old leaves lost because of limitation?

Under the current Court of Cassation approach, the limitation of the monetary claim starts on termination. However, the five-year period from termination, mediation and litigation steps must be checked without delay.

Because the Regulation says leave cannot be transferred, is all unused leave completely deleted?

That result is not definitive. The inability to use leave in fact in another year and the legal consequences of the employer’s past failure to grant it are separate matters. Since there is no settled Court of Cassation case law on the post-2023 period, the claim must be justified by the protective purpose of the right and the analogy with annual leave.

Is it enough to write “labour claims” in the mediation minutes?

To avoid unnecessary argument about the condition precedent to litigation, şua/health leave pay, annual leave, overtime and other claims should each be shown separately. The application form and the scope of the final minutes should be checked before a lawsuit is brought.

If I signed a release, can I not claim şua leave pay?

The release must be examined for the validity conditions of Article 420 TBK, the one-month period, the express type and amount of the claim, and full bank payment. An invalid release does not in itself eliminate the right; where a real payment has been made, its set-off effect is assessed.

Can digital records be preserved before they are deleted?

Written notice requiring the preservation of specific records may be given to the employer or institution. Where there is a risk that the evidence will be lost or its examination made substantially more difficult, evidence preservation under Article 400 et seq. of the HMK, or production of the documents under Article 219 et seq., may be considered. The system, period, user and type of procedure to be requested must be stated clearly.

Does a 2023-regulation dispute end the debate on civil servants’ leave?

No. The Council of State decision E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739 found the majority view lawful, but the dissenting opinion on Article 103 of Law No. 657 and the finality and appeal position of the decision must be checked on the date of publication. The debate therefore has not been definitively concluded in every respect.

Can a şua leave claim be brought while a reinstatement lawsuit is pending?

A claim for şua leave pay arising from termination matures when the valid termination is established. In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, a claim brought before the actual termination date was held premature. Therefore, the valid termination date must be determined before the lawsuit is brought.

Does the EK-2 table give one day of leave to someone with “0–50 hours” written in it who has never worked?

No. The right under the Regulation requires actual work in a controlled area. Zero hours shows that no actual work was performed. The wording “0–50” must not be interpreted to create an independent day of leave for someone who has never worked; the first 50-hour band of actual work is applied as one day.

Can a hospital attendant or an operating theatre employee never obtain şua leave?

No categorical conclusion can be drawn. In the 2025 approving decisions of the Court of Cassation, the claims were rejected according to the concrete duty and state of proof. If it is proved by concrete records, with how many C-arm fluoroscopy or other ionising devices and for how long the employee participated in procedures in the controlled area, the assessment may change.

Conclusion

Şua leave is not a fixed additional leave attached only to working in a radiology department. Under current law, what is decisive is the duty connected with an ionising radiation source or radionuclide, the controlled area and the actual working time in one calendar year.

The four-week Regulation system before 25 June 2021 and the hours-based system since 26 April 2022 and 13 April 2023 must not be confused. Long periods of work must be divided according to changes in legislation; for each period, shift records, device logs, dosimeter data and hospital automation records must be assessed together.

For workers, the Court of Cassation decisions are important on the question of unused health leave converting into a monetary claim on termination, on the last wage, on limitation and on proof. However, the full consequences of the 2023 Regulation are not yet settled by established case law. For public personnel, the one-month provision of Law No. 657, the practice of the administration and the competent court must be separately examined.

The Council of State’s decision of May 27, 2025 found the majority view on the current EK-2 and actual-hours system lawful; however, the dissenting opinion on Article 103 of Law No. 657 and the finality and appeal position of the decision must not be overlooked. The Court of Cassation decisions of 2025–2026 show that concrete duty, records and the correct date of maturity are decisive, rather than the department or professional title.

Basic legal conclusion: The right question is not merely “am I a radiology employee?”. All of the following questions must be answered: “In which status, on which dates, with which ionising source, in which controlled area, and for how many actual hours did I work? Which records make it appear that my leave was granted, and are those records consistent with the actual work?”

Legal information and confidentiality

Information and documents shared with Güneş & Güneş Law Firm are used only for legal assessment and the provision of services; they are protected under the rules on attorney professional secrecy, the duty of confidentiality and the legislation on the protection of personal data. Sensitive health, identity and work records must not be sent through open or insecure channels.

This article is intended for general legal information. It does not create a legal opinion or a guarantee of result without examination of the working period, personnel status, device and area information, records and the current legislation applicable to the concrete facts.

Official, judicial and academic sources

Official sources

• Official Gazette — 13 April 2023 issue
• Ministry of Health — announcement of the Regulation on Ionising Radiation
• Ministry of Health — Law No. 3153
• Antalya Provincial Directorate of Health — announcement of the repeal of the Regulation by Decision No. 4144
• Constitutional Court Norm Decisions — E.2010/29, K.2010/90
• Constitutional Court Decisions Database — B. No. 2019/36519
• Turkish Bar Association — current text of the Regulation on Advertising Prohibition
• Personal Data Protection Authority — conditions for processing personal data
• Personal Data Protection Authority — conditions for processing special-category personal data
• Personal Data Protection Board, summary of decision No. 2023/1578 of September 14, 2023
• Nuclear Regulatory Authority — licensing procedures for radiation applications
• Nuclear Regulatory Authority — guideline on the classification of radiation areas
• Official Gazette No. 32353 of 28 October 2023: Regulation on Authorisations for Radiation Facilities and Radiation Applications.

Judicial and decision sources

• Çalışma ve Toplum — şua leave decisions
• Çalışma ve Toplum — conditions for using şua leave
• Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, E.2015/22-3406
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2022/5703, K.2022/6472, T.25.05.2022 — Çalışma ve Toplum decision PDF
• Council of State 12th Chamber, E.2023/3008, K.2025/2739, T.27.05.2025 — accessible full text
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/4838, K.2025/8455, T.04.11.2025 — accessible full text
• Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/6453, K.2025/8185, T.22.10.2025 — accessible full text

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, 2015/117, pp. 333–358. The work should be used for the former Regulation period.
• S. Barlaz Us et al., “Türkiye'de Radyasyon Çalışanlarının Mevzuattan Kaynaklanan Hakları”, 2021.

---