In Turkish law, psychological harassment is expressed as repeated abuse, threatening violence, and humiliation, which are systematically applied to employees in the workplace by other employees or employers. The most obvious examples of psychological abuse; avoiding self-expression, interrupting, reprimanding loud, continuous criticism, acting as if the employee did not exist in business life, non-genuine rumors, unpleasant implies, lack of qualified work and the threat of physical violence.

Mobbing can also be expressed as a policy of mobbing the worker with repeated movements. In other words, mobbing is a psychological and even physical aggressive behavior applied to the person’s self-confidence and intimidation, by excluding one or several people in the workplace with the intention of intimidating the person they declare as an undesirable person. According to the International Labor Organization, mobbing is defined as de a behavior which is manifested by cruel, malevolent, vengeful, humiliating and critical attitudes to sabotage one or a group of workers..

In order for an action to be considered as psychological harassment, a worker must be carried out with the aim of being targeted and intimidating the worker systematically and regularly. The determination of whether these conditions have been met should be assessed separately for each concrete case. Psychological harassment (mobbing) will be contrary to the employer’s obligation to look after the worker and contradict the employer’s employer’s equal treatment. The personal rights of the worker exposed to mobbing are severely damaged. Personnel rights attacked and morally damaged workers due to this damage may result in mobbing-based non-pecuniary damages. In the determination of the amount of non-pecuniary damage, the civil law is determined by the social and economic situation of the parties and the defect rate by taking into consideration the characteristics of the tangible event.

The employer is obliged to protect and respect the employee’s personality in the service relationship and to provide an order in accordance with the principle of honesty in the workplace, especially to ensure that the workers are not subjected to psychological and sexual harassment and to prevent further damage to those who have suffered such harassment. Otherwise, the employer will be responsible.

Psychological harassment can be applied for different reasons, forcing the worker to leave the job. Mobbing often results in the separation of the worker from the workplace.

JUDGMENT RESOLUTION:

T.C. SUPREME COURT 22. Legal Department Principal No: 2013 / 293 Decision Number: 2013 / 30811K. Date: 27/12/2013

The attorney of the attorney in his work between the years 1994-17.12.2010, the defendant is working in the workplace, the employment contract is terminated unfairly terminated the trial is accepted that the appeal is in the stage of work, despite the work of 12-13 hours of overtime work is not paid, noting that the workplace is exposed to mobbing, moral compensation and more demanded that the payment of the overtime receivables be decided.

The defendant’s representative requested that the plaintiff be charged with overtime, that he had frequently discussed with the staff, he had been warned twice in writing, his branch had been changed due to inefficiency in his branch and his employment contract had been terminated.

The court decided to dismiss the case with the opinion that the plaintiff and the defendant witness statements in the file and the other evidence available together showed no strong evidence that the applicant had been subjected to systematic and sustained psychological pressure, and that the systematic and severe attack on his personal rights or health had not been sufficiently demonstrated by the evidence which was far from doubtful.

1-According to the legal reasons that the decision is based on the evidence collected in the file, the plaintiff’s appeal objections outside the scope of the subparagraph are not appropriate.

2-Defendant workplace employees S.Ç.Ü plaintiffs in the hands of the court and the envelope of the plaque throwing the papers and envelope on the table, after taking the documents back after taking a nervous attitude and then thrown back to the table, the plaintiffs were collecting documents on the ground, the plaintiff as the individual marketing officer current accounts while the current accounts that GB Ç. is assigned to replace the plaintiff, that the plaintiff is a victim of this task and is ill, that the plaintiff wishes to act in accordance with the rules on banking operations; to make another employee who is accused of being inconvenient, unpopular and belligerent by the bank manager, that this and similar negative behaviors towards the plaintiff in the process are repeated. it is stated that the necessary works are frequently given to the plaintiff, overtime work is carried out by the bank manager on Saturdays, there is no regular way of working in the workplace, the plaintiffs are not given to the plaintiffs given to other employees who are in the same position as the plaintiff. In the internal audit, it was determined that the performance was low, the plaintiff was isolated from the other employees in the workplace, and the medical reports were received in the last four months. he was exposed to insult, the courtesy limits in correspondence, exceeded the plaintiff’s negativity in the workplace that the problems were not solved and that there was a defect in them; in the end they experienced anxiety disorders and they were dealing with their health problems; It is understood from the contents of the file that the plaintiff had written under the title of m Events husus, consistency, sincerity and integrity were claimed.

There is no need for a serious violation of personal rights for the existence of mobbing; injustice against personal rights is sufficient; that the plaintiff worker had to put forward the fact that he had put forward suspicion about mobbing in the workplace; When the witness statements, medical reports, expert reports, camera records and all other evidence were evaluated, it was wrong to make a decision in writing without considering that the claim of mobbing was proved by sufficient evidence.

CONCLUSION: The decision of the appeal of the above-mentioned reason, the advance of the appeal fee on request, the decision to return to the interested, on December 27, 2013 was decided by the majority.

NEGATIVE VOTE

According to the contents of the file and in particular the statements of the party witnesses; It is understood that the plaintiff was unable to provide the necessary compliance with his colleagues in the business environment, avoided cooperating with other employees, and occasionally discussed the reasons arising from the conduct of the work with the supervisors and other employees. Become a psychological harassment of the debates arising from the attitudes and behaviors of the plaintiff leading to negativity