In short
Mobbing is a claim of psychological pressure that repeats and is systematic at the workplace. A single argument does not fill this definition. The first record is the date, the person and the correspondence. A hidden recording is not evidence in every file.
The date, the repetition and the witness are the face of the fact.
A termination for just cause is assessed separately.
If the workplace is in Ankara, the labour court and the office are looked at concretely.
Related writings: termination for just cause.
A harsh meeting may happen at every workplace. The question of what mobbing is comes out not from a single rising voice, but from the trace of systematic pressure. Repetition, targeting and continuous conduct directed at the right of personality stand together. If there is no trace, the label stays weak. If there is a trace, the characterisation is built with the chronology, not with a sentence of fear.
This text recounts in general the frame, the proof and the legal paths of a claim of psychological harassment at the workplace. Within employment law, mobbing is not the name of every conflict. The procedure of reinstatement is in the writing how an action for reinstatement is opened. Severance stands in the writing how severance pay is calculated. It is general information. There is no promise of a diagnosis, of an amount or of a result.
How is systematic psychological harassment distinguished?
The dispute of mobbing takes as its subject a cluster of conduct, directed at one worker, that shows continuity, and that is humiliating, excluding or that makes their work meaningless. The cluster is not formed of a single email or a single warning. Repetition and direction are looked at. A random density of work, the pace of the sector or a legitimate assessment of performance does not carry this nature in every file.
There is a legitimate right of management. An instruction of duty, supervision and a written warning may be necessary for the work to run. If the use of the right turns into systematic pressure that targets the personality, the characterisation changes. The turning is read from the content of the instruction, its tone, its frequency and its being directed at only one person. A practice contrary to the principle of equal treatment may be a side fact as well.
A conflict among colleagues may also be lived without the employer's knowledge. If there is knowledge, or a fact that should have been known, the obligation of a measure is spoken of. A measure not being taken does not make every conflict an act of the employer. It may open the dispute of responsibility. The dispute that is opened is not automatic compensation.
A health effect is not the only measure of the characterisation. A disorder of sleep or anxiety may also arise for other reasons. A report may support the fact. It does not take the place of the fact. The absence of a report does not erase the claim in every file either. Reading together is essential.
Targeting over gender, age, belief, a union or a health position may also intersect with the heading of discrimination. The intersection does not mean that every claim of mobbing is an action of discrimination. A separate basis asks for separate proof. If the bases are piled up, the petition scatters. A scattered petition weakens the fact. The list of facts is written first. The legal label is chosen afterwards.
Proof: chronology, document, witness
The burden of proof is on the shoulder of the person who claims. The shoulder is not looking for an impossible single document. Scattered traces come together:
- A dated email and internal correspondence
- Writings of a change of duty, of room or of title
- A timesheet, entry and exit, and a trace of overtime
- An internal complaint, a human-resources record, a note of a meeting
- A witness statement
- If there is one, a physician's report and a record of the workplace physician
A chronological personal note, if it is kept on the day of the event, stands more solid than memory. A long account written years later strengthens the other side's objection of memory. The note is not a text of slander. It is a short record that carries the questions of date, place, who and what.
A recording of sound and of image is not accepted in every file. A recording taken in secret may open a dispute of unlawful evidence. The dispute may run in the form of the recording being disregarded completely, or of it being assessed in a limited way. A hurried recording may turn both the proof and the claim of the right of personality the other way. A written trace stands calmer in most files.
A witness may be those who work in the same unit, or third persons who saw the process. All of them memorising the same sentence weakens credibility. A witness who recounts a concrete day and a concrete conduct is more useful than the general sentence that it was very bad. The employer's witness is subject to the same measure as well.
Side facts such as overtime, work outside the definition of the duty and a deduction from the wage may support the claim of pressure. The support does not change the discipline of proof of the overtime claim. The proof of overtime stands separate with the frame in the writing how overtime is proved.
Internal application, mediation and the paths of an action
An internal complaint is not a condition of the action in every file. Even so, the employer being informed may matter for a measure and for proof. A written application, a record number and a period of answer show that the systematic character stood before the employer. An oral complaint, if it is not supported by a witness, may stay weak.
A claim of retaliation — a change of shift after the complaint, an isolated room, being shown as a target — is a separate layer of fact. The layer does not prove the first claim of harassment automatically. It adds a new link to the chronology. If the link is without a document, it stays as an interpretation.
Mediation is a condition of the action in many labour claims and in a request for reinstatement. Compensation based on mobbing, or claims connected with the termination, may enter this procedure as well. Not every file passes through the same door before the nature of the claim is checked. The period of application may change according to the date of the termination or of the breach. A number of days is not written by heart.
If the facts are erased completely in the minute of mediation, proof may become harder in the later action. If there is an agreement, the performance and the item of waiver should be written clearly. An uncertain waiver may be read as if it swallowed the claim of the right of personality as well. Clarity is a tool of caution, not of a sale.
The path of the action is separated according to claims such as compensation, a receivable, a determination of termination for just cause, or reinstatement. Reinstatement is the procedure of the invalidity of the termination. Mobbing may stand as a fact in the dispute of a valid or a just cause. If the procedure is mixed, the period may be missed. The period is checked according to the current provision.
In practice a calm order may be built like this:
- Write the events as date, place, person and conduct.
- Gather the email, the internal correspondence, the writing of the duty and the timesheet.
- Make the internal complaint in writing, if the order of the workplace is suitable.
- Separate the witness and, if there is one, the health record.
- If termination is being thought of, make clear the separation of the just cause and of severance and notice.
- Assess the mediation that is a condition of the action within its period.
- Separate the claims as compensation, a receivable and reinstatement.
This order is not a winning strategy. A missing record weakens every step. A hurried resignation may leave the third and the fourth step half done. A trace that stays half does not save the characterisation from being a label.
The dispute of termination for just cause, severance and compensation
Systematic pressure may be spoken of under the heading of the worker's termination for just cause. Being spoken of does not mean that every resignation is for just cause. A hurried departure may leave the internal application and the gathering of evidence half done. A trace that stays half weakens the just cause. Waiting is assessed separately as well in a fact of health and of safety. The balance is according to the concrete weight.
If the termination for just cause is accepted, items such as severance may come onto the agenda. Notice is not looked for in most files. The conditions of severance are in a separate writing. If the termination is unjust or uncertain, both the direction of notice and of severance changes. The direction is built not with the label, but with the fact and the documents.
On the side of compensation, the material and the non-pecuniary items are separated. Treatment, medicine, inability to work and a loss of wage ask for a document. Non-pecuniary compensation is discussed by looking at the weight of the breach of the right of personality. The weight is not measured with a single word. Continuity and targeting are read. An amount is not invented.
Bases such as discrimination, not treating equally and contrariness to the employment contract may stand side by side. Standing side by side does not mean that all of them will be accepted at the same time. The court chooses the concrete characterisation. The choice is made easier by the clarity of the list of items in the petition. A list that is not clear scatters the proof.
The employer's defence may be legitimate as well: a fall in performance, discipline, an economic contraction or an internal rule applied equally. The defence does not stand without a document. If there is a document, the characterisation is separated between mobbing and legitimate management. The separation is made not with the language of fear, but with comparable examples.
Where the record of mobbing is read from
A claim of mobbing is read from the chronology, the correspondence and the record of the witness. An amount of compensation that is not written in the file is not added. The office address does not choose the competent authority. A single argument is not counted as mobbing by itself.
Frictions that are seen often:
- Counting a single argument as systematic harassment
- Recounting years later without keeping a record
- Putting the file at risk with an unlawful recording
- Leaving the evidence and the internal application with a hurried resignation
- Signing a general waiver in mediation
- Melting all the items in a single sentence of compensation
The record is not a tool of convicting the other side. It is a tool of carrying one's own account. An exaggerated list weakens credibility. A short, dated and concrete note is more useful. The note should not also be a new sharing that breaches the right of personality. Exposure in the chat groups of the workplace may give rise to a new dispute.
In assessments of a file centred on Çankaya, the measure of the fact is the same as well. The local pace may affect the calendar of mediation and of the labour court. It does not accept or refuse the characterisation by itself. Competence may change according to the termination and to the settlement of the defendant.
Having a lawyer present is not legally obligatory in every file. The absence of an obligation does not mean that the items of the right of personality and of the termination are without risk. A wrong characterisation breaks the backbone of both the mediation and the action. The legal reading is made while the records are in hand.
A record of the workplace physician, of the occupational-safety specialist or of the union representative may be an additional trace in some files. The additional trace does not finish the characterisation by itself. What finishes it is the repetition and the targeting becoming visible with the documents. A fact that is not visible should not be enlarged with a label. A label that is enlarged weakens credibility.
The trace speaks, not the label
Mobbing at the workplace is not the name of a single harsh sentence. Systematic character, targeting and a concrete trace stand together. If there is no trace, the label stays weak. If there is a trace, the path is separated as an internal application, mediation, compensation or termination for just cause. A characterisation is not made before the path is chosen. An amount is not spoken of before the characterisation is made.
This page does not use the language of fear. It does not declare every manager, or every employee, right in advance. Legitimate supervision and continuous pressure that targets the personality are separated. The separation is built with the documents and with the chronology.
The account stays calm here. There is no promise of a diagnosis, no guarantee of an amount, and no pressure to leave at once. The records, the document of termination and the current legislation are read together. The general frame does not take the place of the examination of the concrete file. The trace speaks. The label does not carry the file by itself. The characterisation is not chosen before the chronology is written. The choice is made while the documents are in hand and by checking the current procedure. The concrete event is read with its own record.
Conclusion
This writing is for general information. The document, the period and the procedure of the concrete event should be read separately. There is no promise of a result by heart.