THE LEGAL STATUS OF PAYSTUBS SENT ELECTRONICALLY
1. Introduction
With the digital transformation process, employers are increasingly turning to transmitting pay stubs to employees electronically. This practice, carried out through channels such as Registered Electronic Mail (‘’KEP’’), e-Government, and internal company portals, is becoming increasingly widespread due to its elimination of physical distribution processes and the resulting time and cost savings for all parties.
Electronic transmission methods are generally considered to be largely equivalent to hand-signed pay stubs in terms of legal validity. However, there is a significant distinction regarding their evidentiary value. To understand this distinction, two distinct legal dimensions must be addressed. The first is the duty to inform: proving that the pay stub has reached the employee fulfills the obligation under Article 37 of the Labor Code No. 4857 (“Labor Code”); various electronic channels, primarily KEP, serve this purpose. The second is the pay stub’s evidentiary function: a signed pay stub serves as conclusive evidence in favor of the employer in the event of a dispute and limits the employee’s objection to the pay stub’s content to written evidence. Electronic transmission methods yield different results regarding these two dimensions.
Within the scope of this study, the obligations under Article 37 of the Labor Code are examined in the context of the legal nature of the pay stub and judicial precedents.
2. The Obligation to Provide a Pay Statement Under Article 37 of the Labor Code
Pursuant to Article 37 of the Labor Code, the employer is required to provide the employee with a signed statement or one bearing the employer’s official seal that details the wage calculation upon payment. The statement must separately list the date and period of payment, all additions to the base wage, as well as deductions such as taxes, social security contributions, advance deductions, and garnishments. This regulation ensures that the employee can clearly see all components of their wages.
While payment of wages via bank transfer is mandatory for workplaces with five or more employees, a bank statement or account summary does not serve as a substitute for the pay stub. While a bank record proves that the payment was made, the pay stub details the components of the payment and the reasons for any deductions. An employer who fails to comply with the obligation to issue a pay stub is subject to an administrative fine pursuant to Article 102/1-b of the Labor Code.
Article 37 of the Labor Code does not explicitly regulate electronic transmission regarding the method of issuing the statement. However, it is accepted that this obligation can also be fulfilled electronically through the KEP system established under the Regulation on Procedures and Principles Regarding the Registered Electronic Mail System (‘’Regulation’’). While the legal validity of electronic transmission is confirmed under the Regulation, it does not address under what conditions such transmission acquires the status of conclusive evidence. The answer to this question must be assessed based on the general legal nature of the pay stub and judicial precedent.
3. The Legal Nature of the Pay Slip
Pay slips bearing the employee’s signature constitute conclusive evidence until proven otherwise; the contrary of the matters stated in such a slip can only be proven by written evidence. The employee’s signature constitutes prima facie evidence that they have accepted the wages and additional payments and that the payment was made in full. Pay stubs lacking a signature do not possess this quality; in such cases, the employee may prove the contrary of the pay stub’s content using any form of evidence, including witness testimony.
In the Decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Case No. 2021/7105 E. 2021/11870 K.; Pay stubs bearing the employee’s signature constitute conclusive evidence until their forgery is proven; the contrary of the matters stated on such a pay stub can only be proven by written evidence. The employee’s signature constitutes prima facie evidence that they have accepted the wages and additional payments and that the payment was made in full. In the face of a signed pay stub without a reservation, the employee may prove that they are entitled to more than what appears on the pay stub only through written evidence; however, if a reservation has been made, they may rely on any form of evidence. It has been noted that unsigned pay stubs do not possess this characteristic; in such cases, the employee may prove the contrary of the pay stub’s content using any form of evidence, including witness testimony.
The conclusive evidence status of a signed pay stub requires that it be signed without any reservations. If the employee explicitly records their objection to the pay stub’s content, the right to prove their claim of having a greater entitlement using any form of evidence remains reserved. This principle retains its validity regarding electronic pay stub systems; therefore, integrating a reservation of rights mechanism into the system is mandatory.
4. Electronic Pay Stubs in Light of Judicial Precedents
The application of electronic pay stubs has increasingly featured in judicial decisions in recent years. An examination of regional court of appeal decisions reveals a consistent pattern: Pay stubs transmitted electronically are deemed to have been served; however, these pay stubs do not constitute conclusive evidence unless the employee’s wet or secure electronic signature is present.
Diyarbakır Regional Court of Appeal, 8th Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2023/1011 E. 2023/783 K. dated May 25, 2023 In its decision; Although the defendant’s counsel argued that the unsigned pay stubs submitted to the file were served to the plaintiff via the KEP system and that, for this reason, the contrary of the pay stubs’ content could not be proven by witness testimony, it was understood that the mere fact of serving pay stubs lacking the plaintiff’s signature to the plaintiff does not, by itself, imply the plaintiff’s acceptance of the pay stubs’ content; it was determined that the defendant’s appeal objection to the contrary was unfounded
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Konya Regional Court of Appeal dated February 12, 2026, Case No. 2026/189, Decision No. 2026/731: It was stated that the employee’s electronic signature is required for pay stubs sent via KEP; otherwise, the pay stubs will not be considered signed. The defendant employer’s defense that no objection was raised to the pay stubs was not found to be valid on this ground.
The conclusion drawn from both decisions is the same: KEP notification is a reliable means of proving that the duty to inform has been fulfilled; however, it does not confer the status of a document on the pay stub. For the pay stub to acquire the status of a document, the employee’s voluntary consent—whether through a wet signature or a secure electronic signature—is mandatory.
5. Conditions Required for Legal Validity of Electronic Pay Stubs
As explained above, for a pay stub to acquire the status of a legal document, the employee’s voluntary consent must be recorded. This raises the question of which technical and legal infrastructure can meet this requirement. KEP is a qualified electronic communication channel under the Regulation, where records regarding transmission, receipt, and content integrity are deemed conclusive evidence. KEP records are retained for twenty years and serve as a means of service for legal communications such as notices, termination notices, and formal warnings. Payroll notifications can also be made via KEP. However, for a payroll notification to carry the weight of conclusive evidence, a KEP notification alone is not sufficient; a secure electronic signature infrastructure must also be provided on behalf of the employee.
In this regard, the framework established by the Electronic Signature Law No. 5070 is decisive.
- A time stamp refers to a record verified by an electronic certificate service provider using an electronic signature to determine the time an electronic data was created, modified, sent, received, and/or recorded.
- An electronic signature is electronic data attached to or logically associated with another electronic data and used for the purpose of authentication.
- A secure electronic signature produces the same legal effect as a handwritten signature, in accordance with Article 5 of the Law.
Accordingly, for the electronic payroll system to have evidentiary value, the following conditions must be met simultaneously:
- The payroll must be created with a secure electronic signature and a time stamp,
- The employee must be clearly presented with the option to approve or reject,
- The fact that the document was viewed, approved, or subject to a reservation must be recorded with date and time information,
- The employee must be informed of this method in advance and their written consent must be obtained.
If these conditions are met, the electronic pay stub will carry the same legal weight as a hand-signed pay stub. Systems focused solely on transmission, however, do not confer the status of conclusive evidence on the pay stub.
- GRC LEGAL COMMENT
The use of electronic pay stubs is rapidly spreading in the workplace and offers significant advantages to the parties in terms of cost, time, and process management. However, the legal consequences of this practice require careful evaluation.
The fact that the pay stub has been delivered to the employee fulfills the obligation to inform under Article 37 of the Labor Code; KEP stands out as a tool that fulfills this function in a legally robust manner. However, the pay stub cannot acquire the status of conclusive evidence solely based on the fact of transmission. As consistently established by the Supreme Courts, a pay stub that does not bear the employee’s secure electronic signature is not considered signed and does not acquire the status of conclusive evidence.
To mitigate this risk, the electronic pay stub system must incorporate a secure electronic signature and time-stamp infrastructure, a mechanism that separately records the employee’s intent to approve or reject, and a log that chronologically documents the process of viewing and approving the document. Incorporating this system into the employment contract and obtaining the employee’s prior consent are mandatory elements that complete the legal foundation of this infrastructure.
