In Turkish law, psychological harassment (mobbing) is defined as any repeated mistreatment, threat, violence or humiliation systematically applied to employees in the workplace by other employees or employers. The most obvious examples of psychological harassment are; Preventing oneself from showing up, interrupting oneself, scolding loudly, constant criticism, treating the employee as if he/she does not exist in business life, unfounded rumors, unpleasant insinuations, not giving qualified work and threats of physical violence can be listed as follows.
Mobbing can also be expressed as the policy of intimidating the worker with repeated actions. In other words, mobbing is a psychological and even physically aggressive behavior that is applied to the self-confidence of one or more people in the workplace, to intimidate, harass and exclude the person they declare as an undesirable person with the aim of intimidating them on a continuous basis. According to the International Labor Organization, mobbing is “a form of behavior that is carried out to sabotage one or a group of workers, manifesting itself with cruel, malicious, vengeful, humiliating and critical attitudes.” It is defined as .
In order for an action to be considered psychological harassment, it must be carried out by targeting a worker and must be systematically and regularly aimed at intimidating the worker. Determining whether these conditions are met must be evaluated separately for each concrete case. Psychological harassment (mobbing) will constitute a violation of the employer’s obligation to care for the employee and also a violation of the employer’s obligation to treat its employees equally. The personal rights of workers who are exposed to mobbing are severely damaged. The worker whose personal rights are attacked and who suffers moral damage may file a lawsuit for moral compensation based on mobbing. It is stated in the civil law that the amount of non-pecuniary damage will be determined according to the social and economic situation of the parties and the fault rate, taking into account the characteristics of the concrete case, and the judge is given the right of discretion in this regard.
The employer is obliged to protect and respect the personality of the worker in the service relationship, to ensure an order in accordance with the principle of honesty in the workplace, and to take the necessary precautions, especially to prevent workers from being subjected to psychological and sexual harassment and to prevent further harm to those who have been subjected to such harassment. Otherwise, the employer will be liable.
Psychological harassment can be applied for different reasons, the most important of which is forcing the employee to leave the job. In practice, mobbing often results in the worker leaving the workplace.
SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE SUBJECT:
Republic of Turkey Supreme Court22. Civil Chamber Docket No:2013/293Decision No:2013/30811K. Date:27.12.2013
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client worked at the defendant workplace between 1994 and 17.12.2010, that his employment contract was unfairly terminated, that his reinstatement case was accepted, that he was at the appeal stage, that overtime receivables were not paid despite working 12-13 hours a day, and that he was exposed to mobbing at the workplace, and requested a decision to pay non-pecuniary damages and overtime receivables.
The defendant’s attorney requested that the case be rejected, stating that overtime was included in the plaintiff’s wage, that he frequently argued with the staff, that he was warned twice in writing, that his branch was changed because he was not productive in the branch where he worked, and therefore his employment contract was terminated.
The court decided to reject the case with the opinion that there was no strong evidence showing that systematic and continuous psychological pressure was applied to the plaintiff, considering the statements of the plaintiff and defendant witnesses in the file and other available evidence, and that the aspect that his personal rights or health were subjected to a systematic and severe attack was not sufficiently established with evidence beyond doubt.
1-According to the evidence collected in the documents in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeal objections outside the scope of the following paragraph are invalid.
2-Ş., one of the employees of the defendant workplace. C. Ü. showed an angry attitude towards the plaintiff and threw the papers and envelope in her hand onto the plaintiff’s desk and onto him, after a while he took the documents back and showed an angry attitude and threw them on the table again, the plaintiff collected the fallen documents, G. B. Ç., who was the current accounts officer while the plaintiff was working as an individual marketing officer, was assigned to the plaintiff’s place, the plaintiff thought that he was aggrieved due to this change of duty and fell ill, the plaintiff wanted to act in accordance with the rules regarding banking transactions, so his superiors He had problems with the plaintiff, he was subjected to pressure with warnings, accusations and hurtful tones, he was accused by the bank manager as a trouble-making, incompatible, unpopular and quarrelsome person, these and similar negative behaviors towards the plaintiff were repeated during the process, the plaintiff was frequently given the work that should have been done by another staff member, the bank manager made him work on Saturdays, there was no regular working pattern at the workplace, keys and passwords were given to other employees in the same position as the plaintiff but they were not given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffered from a digestive system disorder due to being in a stressful working environment, and the bank branch’s operations were not given to the plaintiff. It was determined that the plaintiff showed poor performance in the internal audit, that the plaintiff was isolated from other employees in the workplace, that he received twenty-day health reports in the last four months, that he was subjected to consecutive disciplinary investigations in the last year and that he was asked to defend himself, that he was insulted by being called “indecent” in the correspondence made via e-mail within the branch, that the limits of politeness were exceeded in the correspondences, that although the plaintiff conveyed the negativities he had experienced to his superior at the workplace, the problems were not resolved and that he was found to be at fault, that he suffered from an anxiety disorder as a result of the negativities he experienced, and He was dealing with health problems and his annual salary increase was predicted to be only 1.96; It is understood from the content of the entire file that the plaintiff wrote about his experiences at work under the heading “Events”, that the article in question shows consistency, sincerity and integrity with the alleged issues, and that these issues constitute mobbing.
There is no need for serious violation of personal rights for the existence of mobbing, injustice towards personal rights is sufficient, and conclusive evidence beyond doubt is not required in mobbing allegations; It is sufficient for the plaintiff worker to put forward facts that will raise suspicion that mobbing is being applied to him in the workplace, and the burden of proving that mobbing is not taking place in the workplace falls on the defendant; When witness statements, medical reports, expert reports, camera records and all other evidence were evaluated, making a written decision without considering that the mobbing allegation was proven with sufficient evidence was erroneous and required reversal.
RESULT: It was decided by majority vote on 27.12.2013 that the appealed decision should be REVERSED for the above-mentioned reason and that the appeal fee collected in advance should be refunded to the relevant person upon request.
VOTE AGAINST
According to the content of the file and especially the statements of the party witnesses; It is understood that the plaintiff could not achieve the necessary harmony with his colleagues in the work environment, avoided cooperating with other employees, and argued with his superiors and other employees at the workplace from time to time for reasons arising from the conduct of the work. It is not possible to describe the arguments arising from the plaintiff’s attitudes and behaviors that cause negativities in terms of the conduct of the business as psychological harassment. There is no evidence that the plaintiff was selected as a target and systematic intimidation actions were carried out against him. For this reason, there is no error in the court’s determination and evaluation that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was subjected to psychological harassment, and that the aspect that his personal rights or health were subjected to a systematic and serious attack was not sufficiently established with evidence beyond doubt.