INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL FRAMEWORK

In light of the judicial decisions examined, for a behavior to be considered mobbing (psychological harassment) in Turkish law, it must be more than isolated, momentary, or rude behaviors arising from a general management style; it must be a set of systematic, continuous, intentional actions targeting a specific person, with the aim of intimidation. In the decisions of the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, and the Constitutional Court, employer behaviors characterized as mobbing have been categorized under the following main headings.

1. JOB LOCATION CHANGES AND UNQUALIFIED JOB ASSIGNMENTS

One of the most common types of mobbing found in judicial decisions involves assignments that do not align with the employee’s expertise, harm their career, or are isolating.

  • Assignments Incompatible with Career: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2022/17806Source) considered it mobbing when a computer operator employee’s job location was frequently changed and they were finally assigned to work “at the operating room door,” unrelated to their expertise. Similarly, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2015/3341Source) deemed it systematic harassment when a female employee was forced to work in the “field” department where truck and lorry shipments were handled, and this was used as a threat.
  • Assignments for Exile and Isolation: The 8th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2018/203Source), despite judicial rulings, evaluated the continuous temporary assignment of an employee to remote districts and, upon their return to the center, being seated in the same room as drivers in a basement without a phone/computer, as mobbing reaching the dimension of “torment”. The Constitutional Court (10/3/2016), in its referenced decisions, presented the relocation of a lawyer 30 times in 9 months as an example of mobbing.
  • Imposed Labor and Tasks Outside of Scope: In the incident examined by the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2017/14805Source) (and, although overturned on procedural grounds, identified by the local court), an employee being made to clean toilets outside their duties and having a report filed against them for “not doing the assigned work” was defined as mobbing.

2. HUMILIATION, INSULT, AND MISTREATMENT

Verbal and physical attacks targeting an employee’s dignity are considered a fundamental element of mobbing if they are systematic.

  • Public Humiliation: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2021/12218Source) has accepted as mobbing the reprimanding of an employee in meetings and in front of clients, and subjecting them to harsh criticism such as “I have never seen such a bad team.” In its dissenting opinion, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2013/14296Source) analyzed the manager “putting the employee in the position of an accused” in front of other team leaders as an example of mobbing.
  • Physical and Verbal Aggression: The 22nd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2013/293Source) and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers (2015/2274Source) have deemed the manager throwing documents/envelopes at the employee, using the expression “imprudent” in emails, and shouting “I’m fed up with you, don’t come to work” sufficient for proving mobbing.
  • Sexist Remarks: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court (2015/33818Source) evaluated a manager telling sexually explicit anecdotes to their subordinate and using expressions like “horny wives” as a serious assault on personal rights and harassing behavior, considering it a reason for compensation, even though the element of systematicity was debatable.

3. ISOLATION AND CUTTING OFF COMMUNICATION

Actions aimed at isolating an employee in the workplace are considered by the judiciary as an indicator of mobbing.

  • Physical and Social Exclusion: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2015/14424Source) has described forcing the employee to make their presentation on a “kitchen chair” and isolating them by cutting off their relations with other employees as mobbing.
  • Denial of Access: The General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (2015/2274) has viewed the plaintiff not being given keys and passwords provided to other employees, and their isolation from workplace systems, as part of mobbing.
  • Communication Restrictions: The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (2021/12218) has accepted pressures such as preventing the employee from going out for lunch, forcing them to take their phone even when going to the restroom, and late responses to phone calls being met with anger, as mobbing.

4. ABUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND AUTHORITY

The employer’s use of their management right like a weapon with the aim of intimidating the employee has been evaluated within the scope of mobbing.

  • Systematic Disciplinary Investigations: Court of Cassation 4th Civil Chamber (2015/12093Source), accepted the initiation of 4 separate disciplinary investigations against an academician within 5 months, and making the exercise of their legal rights (e.g., objecting to an assignment contrary to regulations) the subject of investigation, as “mobbing in the nature of an unlawful act.”
  • Rendering Judicial Decisions Ineffective: Ankara Regional Administrative Court 10th Administrative Litigation Chamber (2017/233Source), viewed the administration’s repeated new appointments and imposition of disciplinary penalties following assignment procedures cancelled by the court as a systematic intimidation policy implemented by circumventing judicial decisions.
  • Punishing Excuses: Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (2015/14424), considered requiring a defense and imposing disciplinary action by stipulating a “wet-signed form” even in valid excuses such as family members having a traffic accident, as an element of mobbing.

5. DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATION OF THE OBLIGATION OF EQUAL TREATMENT

  • Union Pressure: Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (2016/20451Source), accepted the pressures that began after workers joined a union as grounds for mobbing and union compensation.
  • Obstruction of Promotion and Rights: The Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber (2017/42766Source), evaluated actions such as failure to promote on time, non-payment of attorney’s fees, and unjustly issuing a reprimand, as mobbing aimed at marginalizing the employee.

SITUATIONS NOT CONSIDERED MOBBING (DISTINGUISHING CRITERIA)

In the reported decisions (E.g.: Supreme Court 22nd Civil Chamber 2014/23860Source, Council of State 5th Chamber 2016/24415Source, Supreme Court 9th Civil Chamber 2010/38293Source), the following situations were not considered mobbing:

  • Non-continuous, isolated rude behaviors or momentary outbursts of anger (Workplace rudeness).
  • Duty changes made as required by the job or based on general operational decisions.
  • A stressful work environment resulting from a general management style, not targeting a specific individual.
  • Abstract allegations not supported by concrete evidence (witness, document, health report, etc.).

CONCLUSION

For an employer’s conduct to be considered mobbing according to judicial decisions, the act must be systematic and continuous, target a specific employee, intend to intimidate/force resignation and harm the employee’s personal rights, health, or professional status. Changes in workplace, derogatory remarks, isolation, unfair disciplinary processes, and excessive workload that possess these elements have been recognized as mobbing by judicial bodies.