In Turkish law, psychological harassment (mobbing) is defined as any kind of abuse, threat, violence, humiliation that is systematically applied to employees in the workplace by other employees or employers, repeated. The most obvious examples of psychological harassment include preventing self-expression, interrupting, loudly scolding, constant criticism, treating an employee as if he was not in business life, untrue rumors, unpleasant innuendo, not being given a qualified job, and the threat of physical violence.
Mobbing can also be expressed as a policy of intimidating a worker with repeated movements.In other words, mobbing is a psychological and even physical aggressive behavior that is applied to intimidate, harass and self-esteem of one or more people in the workplace by excluding the person they declare as an undesirable person for the purpose of intimidation at a frequency that is continuous.According to the International Labour Organization, mobbing is defined as “a form of behavior that manifests itself in cruel, malicious, vengeful, humiliating and critical attitudes made to sabotage one or a group of workers”.
In order for an act to be considered psychological harassment, it must be carried out by targeting a worker, systematically and regularly aimed at intimidating the worker. The determination of whether these conditions have been realized should be evaluated separately for each concrete event. Psychological harassment (mobbing) will constitute a violation of the employer’s obligation to monitor the employee and a violation of the employer’s obligation to treat his employees equally. The personality rights of the worker exposed to mobbing are severely damaged. A worker whose personal rights have been attacked and who has suffered moral damage may file a lawsuit for non-pecuniary compensation based on mobbing due to this damage. It is stated in the civil code that the amount of moral compensation will be determined according to the social and economic situation of the parties and the defect rate, taking into account the characteristics of the concrete event in determining the amount of moral compensation, and the judge has been granted discretion in this regard.
The employer is obliged to protect and respect the personality of the employee in the service relationship and to ensure an order in accordance with the principle of honesty in the workplace, in particular, to take the necessary measures so that employees do not suffer psychological and sexual harassment and those who have suffered such harassment do not suffer further. Otherwise, the employer’s responsibility will arise.
Psychological harassment can be applied for different reasons, the first of these reasons is forcing the employee to leave work. Mobbing in practice often results in the employee leaving the workplace.
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE:
T.C.Yargitay22. Legal Department Base No:2013/293 Decision No:2013/30811K. Date:27.12.2013
The plaintiff’s attorney that his client 1994-17.12.Between 2010 working in the workplace, the defendant, upon the termination of the labour contract, wrongful return has been accepted that if you opened the case at the stage of Appeal was that the work 12-13 hours a day, although whether the receivables are paid overtime, overtime compensation and noting that mobbing in the workplace has been exposed to spiritual receivables decided to make the requested.
The defendant’s deputy requested that the case be dismissed by stating that overtime is included in the plaintiff’s salary, that he often argues with the staff, that he was warned twice in writing, that his branch was changed due to lack of efficiency in the branch where he works, and that his employment contract was terminated for this reason.
The court decided to dismiss the case with the opinion that there is no strong evidence, the fact that the rights of personality or his health have been systematically and severely attacked has not been adequately demonstrated with evidence far from doubt.
1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not valid.
2-The defendant is one of the employees of the workplace. C. Finish.’s limited the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s table show an attitude in your hand you threw up on the paper and the envelope, and after a while, and get back the documents in question exhibited a limited attitude, but then again threw them on the table, falling to the ground collects the documents from the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s individual current accounts while working as marketing officer, official, G. B. C.’s may be assigned instead of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff of this task are victimized because of a change in the idea that he caught and got sick, the plaintiff wants to comply with the rules on banking operations, therefore, problems with supervisors, where there are, warning, and hurtful accusations in style when exposed to pressure, the bank manager by a badass, nerdy, unpopular and accused the plaintiff of these and other contentious as one of negative behaviors in the process of being repeated, the plaintiff was given to another staff frequently work to do, Saturday overtime days have been built by a bank manager in the workplace, that’s not the way regular work, the plaintiff is given to other employees who are in the same position with key and encrypts in the case where the plaintiff did not stressful working environment with the effect of the plaintiff’s digestive system discomfort being suffered, showed poor performance in the internal control of the bank branch determined that the plaintiff which are isolated from other employees in the workplace in the last four months and twenty receives daily health reports, for the last year in a row to defend itself by the passing of disciplinary proceedings by electronic mail to any other branch in the correspondence “ghastly” insulted by being called exposed, courtesy of correspondences where the limits are exceeded, forwarded by the supervisor in the case of the plaintiff where he lived negativity at the workplace itself, where the defect is located are met and solutions to issues, health problems, suffering from adversities of living and dealing with anxiety disorder at the end of the annual salary increase only as stipulated 1,96; it is clear from the entire contents of the file that the plaintiff wrote about his experiences at work under the heading “Events”, that consistency, sincerity and integrity with the alleged issues are seen in this article, and that these issues constitute mobbing.
The existence of mobbing without the need of severe violations of the rights of persons, is sufficient for the injustice of individual rights, it also claims that it determines is not conclusive evidence beyond doubt in mobbing; suspicious cases that mobbing in the workplace applies the plaintiff of the workers to push forward enough, is that mobbing in the workplace did not take place the burden of proof falls on the defendant; when the witness statements, medical reports, expert report, camera recordings and all other evidence are evaluated, it is erroneous to make a decision in writing without considering that the mobbing allegation has been proven with sufficient evidence and required to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was decided by a majority vote on 27.12.2013 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the interested party upon request.
VOTE AGAINST
According to the contents of the file and especially the statements of the witnesses of the parties; 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 from time to time argued with his supervisors and other employees at work for reasons arising from the conduct of the work. It is not possible to characterize the discussions arising from the plaintiff’s attitudes and behaviors that lead to negativity in terms of the conduct of the business as psychological harassment (mobing). There is no evidence that the plaintiff was chosen as the target person and systematic intimidation actions were carried out against him. Therefore, there is no inaccuracy in the court’s determination and assessment that there is no evidence of psychological abuse of the plaintiff, that his personality rights or health have been systematically and severely attacked has not been adequately demonstrated with evidence far from doubt.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.