In Turkish law, psychological harassment (mobbing) is defined as any kind of repeated ill-treatment, threat, violence, humiliation applied to employees in the workplace by other employees or employers. The most obvious examples of psychological harassment; avoiding showing oneself, interrupting, scolding loudly, constant criticism, treating the employee as if they are not in business life, unfounded rumors, unpleasant allusions, not being given qualified work and the threat of physical violence.
Mobbing can also be expressed as a policy of intimidating the worker with repetitive actions. In other words, mobbing is a psychological and even physical aggressive behavior applied to the self-confidence of one or more people in the workplace, by excluding the person they declare as an unwanted person with a constant frequency of intimidation. According to the International Labor Organization, mobbing is defined as “a form of behavior that manifests itself in cruel, malicious, vengeful, humiliating and critical attitudes that are made to sabotage one or a group of workers”.
For an act 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. The determination of whether these conditions are fulfilled should be evaluated separately for each concrete event. Psychological harassment (mobbing) will constitute a violation of the employer’s obligation to watch over the worker and also the employer’s obligation to treat their workers equally. The personal rights of the worker exposed to mobbing are severely damaged. The worker whose personal rights are attacked and morally damaged can file a lawsuit for moral compensation based on mobbing due to this damage. It is stated in the civil law that the amount of non-pecuniary damage will be determined according to the social and economic status of the parties and the rate of fault, taking into account the characteristics of the concrete case, and the judge has been given discretion in this matter.
The employer is obliged to protect and respect the personality of the employee in the service relationship, to ensure an order in accordance with the principle of honesty in the workplace, and to take the necessary measures especially to prevent the 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, one of which is forcing the worker to leave the job. In practice, mobbing often results in the employee leaving the workplace.
JURISDICTION ON THE SUBJECT:
T.R. Supreme Court22. Law Office Act No: 2013/293 Decision No: 2013/30811K. Date:27.12.2013
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that his client worked at the defendant’s workplace between 1994-17.12.2010, that his employment contract was unfairly terminated, that the reemployment lawsuit was accepted, that he was at the appeal stage, that his overtime receivables were not paid despite working 12-13 hours a day, that he was exposed to mobbing in the workplace, moral compensation and overtime. He requested that his wages be paid.
The defendant’s attorney requested that the lawsuit be dismissed, stating that overtime was included in the wages of the plaintiff, that he had argued frequently with the personnel, that he was warned twice in writing, that the branch he worked in was changed due to ineffectiveness, and that the employment contract was therefore terminated.
The court decided to reject the case, considering that there is no strong evidence showing that systematic and continuous psychological pressure was applied to the plaintiff, and that his personal rights or health were subjected to a systematic and severe attack, based on the evaluation of the statements of the plaintiff and the defendant together with the other available evidence.
1-According to the evidence gathered from the articles in the file and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the paragraph below are not appropriate.
2-One of the defendant workplace employees Ş. NS. Current accounts while Ü. showed an angry attitude towards the plaintiff and threw the papers and the envelope on the plaintiff’s table and on it, after a while, he took the documents back and threw them back on the table after exhibiting an angry attitude, collecting the documents that had fallen to the ground, and working as the individual marketing officer of the plaintiff. GB Ç., who is the authorized officer of the plaintiff, was appointed instead of the plaintiff, he thought that the plaintiff was a victim due to this change of duty and fell ill, the plaintiff wanted to act in accordance with the rules in banking transactions, therefore he had problems with his superiors, and was exposed to pressures with warnings, accusations and offensive tones, He was accused by the bank manager as a troublemaker, incompatible, unpopular and quarrelsome, this and similar negative behaviors towards the plaintiff were repeated in the process, the work that another personnel had to do was often given to the plaintiff, the bank manager made him work on Saturdays at work. There was no regular way of working in their offices, keys and passwords were given to the other employees in the same position as the plaintiff, but they were not given to the plaintiff, the plaintiff suffered from digestive system discomfort due to being in a stressful working environment, it was determined that the bank branch performed poorly in the internal audit, the plaintiff was isolated from other employees in the workplace, He has received twenty-day health reports in the last four months, he has been subject to disciplinary investigations in the last year, and he has been asked to defend himself, he has been insulted by saying “impliant” in correspondences made via e-mail within the branch, the limits of courtesy were exceeded in the correspondence, and the negativities of the plaintiff in the workplace. Although he conveyed this to his supervisor, the problems were not resolved and he had faults, he suffered from anxiety disorder and was dealing with health problems as a result of the negativities experienced, and that a one-year salary increase was envisaged as only 1.96; It is understood from all the contents of the file that the plaintiff wrote down his experiences at the workplace under the title of “Events”, that there is consistency, sincerity and integrity with the alleged issues in the article in question, and that these issues constitute mobbing.
It is not necessary for the existence of mobbing to be severely violated, the injustice towards personal rights is sufficient, and there will be no unequivocal evidence for mobbing claims; it is sufficient for the plaintiff worker to put forward facts that would raise suspicion that mobbing was applied to him in the workplace, and the burden of proving that mobbing did not occur in the workplace falls on the defendant; When the witness statements, health reports, expert report, camera records and all other evidences are evaluated, giving a written decision without considering that the mobbing claim is proven with sufficient evidence is wrong and necessitated breaking it.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 27.12.2013 that the appealed decision be OVERFINED for the above-mentioned reason, and that the appeal fee paid in advance be returned to the relevant person upon request.
NEGATIVE VOTE
According to the content of the file and especially the statements of the witnesses; it is understood that the plaintiff could not ensure the necessary harmony with his colleagues in the work environment, avoided cooperating with other employees, and argued from time to time with his supervisors and other employees at the workplace for reasons arising from the conduct of the business. Discussions arising from the plaintiff’s attitudes and behaviors that cause negativities in terms of the conduct of the business are mobbing.
it is not possible to characterize it. There is no evidence that the plaintiff was selected as the target person and systematically intimidated against him. For this reason, there is no mistake in the court’s determination and evaluation that there is no evidence of psychological abuse against the plaintiff, that his personality rights or that his health has been systematically and severely attacked, and that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated with undoubted evidence.
