What is an Employee Personnel File?
An employee personnel file is a file that an employer is required to prepare for each employee they employ, as regulated under Article 75 of the Turkish Labor Law No. 4857. The article states: “The employer shall prepare a personnel file for each employee. In this file, the employer is obliged to keep all kinds of documents and records that must be prepared under this Law and other laws, in addition to the employee’s identity information, and to present them to authorized officials and authorities when requested. The employer is also obliged to use the information obtained about the employee in accordance with the principles of good faith and in compliance with the law, and not to disclose information in which the employee has a legitimate interest in remaining confidential.”
When examining the content of the employee personnel file, it includes the employee’s identity information, employment contract, diploma, medical reports, and documents related to hiring and termination. Accordingly, the employee personnel file essentially serves as a means of defense in legal disputes and during inspections conducted by the Social Security Institution.
What Must Be Included in the Employee Personnel File
● Certificate of Residence
● Population Registration Copy
● Copy of Identity Card
● Passport-size Photograph
● Employment / Service Contract
● Payroll Slips
● Copy of Diploma
● Medical Report
● Job Application Form
● Criminal Record Certificate
● Military Status Certificate (for male employees)
● Copy of Marriage Certificate (for married employees)
● Copies of Identity Cards of the Employee’s Spouse and Children (if any)
● SGK Employment Entry Declaration
What is the penalty for not keeping an employee personnel file?
Since keeping an employee personnel file is a statutory obligation, employers are subject to a penalty in case of non-compliance with this obligation. In this regard, the fine for not preparing an employee personnel file has been set at 26,620.00 Turkish Lira as of 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the retention period of the employee personnel file?
The retention period of the employee personnel file varies depending on the documents it contains. Accordingly, under the Turkish Code of Obligations and the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, documents must be retained for 10 years starting from their date of issuance. For records and documents falling under the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, the retention period ranges between 15 and 40 years.
2. What documents must be included in the employee personnel file in special cases?
In certain special circumstances of the employee, the documents that must be included in the employee personnel file may differ. These documents are listed below:
● Disability report in case of disability
● Work permit document for foreign nationals
● Parental consent form for workers under 18 years of age
● Incentive documents used
● İŞKUR application registration document for ex-convicts, victims of terrorism, or persons with disabilities
3. Who prepares the employee personnel file?
The employee personnel file is generally prepared by the Human Resources (HR) department of companies. Accordingly, the HR department is responsible for regularly and up-to-date tracking of employees’ personal and professional information within the relevant company.
Some Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) Decisions Regarding What Must Be Included in the Employee Personnel File
- “In summary, the plaintiff’s witness heard during the trial stated that the plaintiff is currently the general manager of …, that after the plaintiff started working, the owner of the defendant company, … Zülfikar, contacted him and said that they had a problematic separation with the plaintiff, that the separation process was contentious, and that the plaintiff was not a person who could always be trusted and should be approached with caution. About one month after this conversation, the plaintiff’s previous workplace personnel file was sent to them. The witness also stated that there was nothing defamatory about the plaintiff in these documents, but that the documents reached the employer’s level, and that if he had not stood by the plaintiff, the employment contract would have been terminated; however, it was not terminated because he knew and trusted the plaintiff. When the concrete case, the witness statements heard during the trial, and the evidence submitted are evaluated together, it is understood that the act of sending the plaintiff’s personnel file from the previous workplace to the new employer—which contained private correspondence, a resignation letter including the plaintiff’s undertaking to pay certain amounts based on promissory notes to the former employer, and payment receipts—was intended to disturb the plaintiff and portray him as a person who does not tell the truth. After this incident, the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract was considered but prevented. It is clear that the incident caused moral harm to the plaintiff; therefore, it should have been accepted that he is entitled to moral damages, and the rejection of this claim is erroneous.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, decision dated 14.04.2016, Case No: 2014/37215, Decision No: 2016/9418)
- “In the preliminary examination conducted pursuant to Article 40 of the Court of Cassation Law No. 2797 and Article 18 of the Internal Regulations of the Court of Cassation, it was determined that the employee’s personnel file (… employment contract, payroll slips, attendance records, and shift schedules) was not included in the physical case file, and that some of the documents in the electronic environment created via UYAP were illegible. Accordingly, all information and documents contained in the plaintiff’s workplace personnel file must be obtained in a legible form and the deficiencies must be remedied, after which the file should be sent to our Chamber for appellate review.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, decision dated 21.02.2024, Case No: 2023/21268, Decision No: 2024/3128)
- “Although the text of the contract was not submitted by the parties, it is understood from the case file that the plaintiff carried out the duties undertaken at the defendant foundation university pursuant to a contract concluded with the defendant. Such contracts are concluded in accordance with Article 23 of the Regulation on Foundation Higher Education Institutions and the authority granted by this provision. According to the said article, the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is a private law relationship governed by private law rules. The plaintiff is a worker within the scope of Law No. 4857. Decisions of the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes are not of precedential (principle-setting) nature. The fact that the defendant foundation university is subject to constitutional provisions applicable to state-established higher education institutions in terms of academic activities outside financial and administrative matters, as well as in terms of providing academic staff and security, does not eliminate the existence of an employment contract or the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Labour Courts Law No. 5521, the dispute must be resolved before the judicial courts and the labour courts. Therefore, instead of examining the merits of the case, the Regional Court of Appeal should have ruled on the substance; the decision declaring that the administrative judiciary had jurisdiction and therefore that the “judicial remedy was inadmissible” is erroneous.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, decision dated 09.03.2021, Case No: 2020/2160, Decision No: 2021/5802)
- “After the termination of the plaintiff’s employment contract, it was stated by witnesses that a worker with a medical excuse working in another department was transferred to the plaintiff’s position; however, it is understood that this situation was temporary and lasted for a short period of time. In the expert report forming the basis of the judgment, it was stated that approximately 4 months and 20 days after the termination date of the plaintiff’s employment contract (30.09.2013), namely on 10.02.2014, five order preparation staff (… order preparation staff) were hired, and that within the 4-month period prior to termination, packaging staff were also employed on 03.05.2013 and 18.06.2013. It was further stated that the packaging staff position provided by the defendant employer did not require any experience, whereas the order preparation staff duties included placing orders into crates in accordance with work orders received via RF terminal, checking whether items were in stock when not found on shelves, reporting if out of stock, forwarding errors identified by the MPS system to upper management, supporting freezer orders with ice packs, checking delivery notes, and placing items in freezer storage. It was explained that the plaintiff graduated from an Anatolian Vocational High School, Graphic Design Department, and from the Faculty of Education, Fine Arts Department (Art Teaching), and had experience as an instructor and art teacher. It was also noted that the employees hired for order preparation and packaging were recruited for the first time in the defendant workplace, and that these jobs do not require specialization and can be performed with short-term training or briefing. Considering the plaintiff’s educational background, it was concluded that no finding or document was encountered during the workplace examination or in the case file indicating that another job had been offered to the plaintiff at the workplace. However, the defendant’s objection to the expert report, arguing that these jobs require physical strength and are therefore unsuitable for the plaintiff, must be considered. At this point, it is not sufficient to rely solely on job descriptions. In order to determine the actual situation, the expert should be granted authority to conduct a new on-site examination, and the defendant’s claim that the work actually performed by these employees could not be performed by the plaintiff should be evaluated, and a decision should be made accordingly.” (Court of Cassation, 22nd Civil Chamber, decision dated 23.01.2017, Case No: 2017/697, Decision No: 2017/717)
- “In the present dispute, a vehicle allowance was included in the calculation as part of the social benefits added to the wages for the period of non-working time, and was accordingly included in the judgment. However, transportation services provided in kind or vehicle allocation for work are dependent on the employee’s actual performance of work; therefore, including them within the scope of additional social benefits for the non-working period and ruling accordingly is erroneous. 3- Regarding the wage amount used as the basis for calculation, the defendant’s counsel argued in the appeal petition that the employee taken as a comparator (…) cannot be considered a valid benchmark. According to witness testimony, the plaintiff’s position is “manager in the treasury operations team.” Although the comparator employee’s payroll lists the position as “credit operations,” the exact nature of this job is not clearly understood. The defendant’s counsel also argued in the appeal petition that the comparator employee’s salary increased due to promotion. Therefore, the parties, and if necessary the plaintiff himself, should be asked about the allegations concerning the comparator employee (…) stated in the appeal petition. Documents and information regarding this employee’s position, promotion, and promotion date should be obtained, and it should be clarified whether they can be used as a valid comparator. It should also be assessed whether there are other employees who can serve as a valid benchmark for the plaintiff. If no comparable employee can be identified, the plaintiff’s wage at the time when the employment contract was effectively terminated (i.e., when the invalid termination was deemed to have occurred) should be determined by indexing it to the minimum wage, and the calculation should be made based on the wage as of the date the termination became final.” (Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber, decision dated 28.09.2017, Case No: 2015/12209, Decision No: 2017/14445)
