Mobbing, also referred to as psychological harassment in the workplace, may be defined as a series of negative acts carried out by one or more individuals within the work environment against another employee over a certain period of time in a repetitive and systematic manner. Such conduct typically aims to intimidate the targeted employee, render them ineffective, or ultimately force them to withdraw from the workplace. Behaviours that fall within the scope of mobbing are capable of harming the victim’s personal rights, professional reputation, social relations, as well as their physical and psychological well-being. These acts, which are generally intentional, malicious, and systematic in nature, may result in serious violations of employees’ rights within working life.
Furthermore, the scope and elements of psychological harassment in the workplace have also been shaped and clarified through judicial precedents. Indeed, court decisions have elaborated in detail under which circumstances mobbing may be deemed to exist and which types of conduct fall within this scope.
Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 22nd Civil Chamber, File No: 2015/11958, Decision No: 2016/15623:
“The most typical examples of psychological harassment include preventing an employee from expressing themselves, interrupting them while speaking, reprimanding them loudly, constant criticism, treating the employee as if they do not exist within the workplace, cutting off communication, disregarding their opinions, spreading unfounded rumours, making unpleasant insinuations, failing to assign qualified work, giving meaningless tasks and constantly changing the employee’s position, assigning excessively heavy tasks, and threatening physical violence.
As can be seen, in order for an act to be considered psychological harassment, it must be directed at a specific employee, continue over a certain period of time, and assume a systematic character. Whether these conditions have been met must be evaluated separately in each specific case.”[1]
As indicated by the definition, not every negative act encountered within the workplace may automatically be qualified as psychological harassment (mobbing). In order for a particular behaviour to fall within the scope of mobbing, the relevant acts must possess certain characteristics and include specific elements. In this regard, the following criteria should be assessed collectively in determining whether psychological harassment exists in a workplace:
- The acts must occur within the workplace or in connection with work.
- Psychological harassment is not limited to conduct directed from a superior to a subordinate; it may also occur from a subordinate towards a superior or between employees of equal status.
- The conduct must not be incidental but carried out within a certain pattern or plan.
- The behaviour must not be a one-off incident but should demonstrate continuity and repetition over time.
- The acts must be intentional and deliberate.
- The conduct is generally aimed at intimidating the employee, rendering them ineffective, or forcing them to leave the workplace.
- As a result of such conduct, damage must occur to the victim’s personal rights, professional standing, or physical or psychological health.
- The negative attitudes and behaviours directed at the victim may manifest either openly or in a covert manner.
The collective assessment of these elements is of great importance in determining whether certain conduct occurring in the workplace constitutes psychological harassment.
The existence and scope of workplace mobbing have also been further clarified through judicial decisions, which have established certain criteria in this regard. Accordingly, the determination of mobbing is carried out in light of judicial precedents, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each individual case.
Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 22nd Civil Chamber, File No: 2013/11788, Decision No: 2014/14008:
“For the existence and recognition of mobbing, it is not necessary that the victim suffer from a psychological disorder, nor is every psychological disorder necessarily caused by mobbing. It is a known fact that workplace stress may in many cases produce effects on employees’ health similar to mobbing. The phenomenon that negatively affects employees by influencing their behaviour, productivity, and social relations is defined as stress, and the symptoms of such distress often resemble those of mobbing. Although acts constituting mobbing may create psychological pressure on the victim and lead to certain health problems, it would be incorrect to attribute every form of psychological pressure or discomfort to mobbing.
In this context, even though a certain level of workplace stress, rude, offensive, or humiliating behaviour may make employees unhappy and may impair their psychological and emotional well-being, it would be erroneous to classify such conduct as mobbing without examining the other elements. For instance, workplace rudeness, which reflects a lack of courtesy and respect, consists of words, attitudes, and behaviours that are personally offensive, unpleasant, and unwelcome.Considering the etymological meaning and historical development of the concept of mobbing, it refers to the efforts of one or more individuals within the same workplace or organization to exert psychological and emotional pressure on a particular person through words, attitudes, or behaviours that systematically create feelings of intimidation, fear, anxiety, distress, or frustration, with the aim of forcing that person to act or refrain from acting in a certain way, excluding them from the common environment, weakening, devaluing, humiliating or rendering them passive. What distinguishes mobbing from phenomena such as stress, burnout syndrome, workplace rudeness, or job dissatisfaction is the fact that a particular individual is targeted for a specific purpose and that the wrongful conduct occurs continuously, systematically, and frequently.”[2]
The Labour Law No. 4857 does not contain an explicit provision directly regulating psychological harassment (mobbing) in the workplace. Nevertheless, certain provisions of the Law indirectly provide mechanisms through which such conduct may be sanctioned. For this reason, in practice the phenomenon of psychological harassment is largely evaluated through the interpretation of these provisions and judicial precedents.
The legal consequences of psychological harassment may vary depending on the status of the individual committing the harassment within the employment relationship. Where the mobbing is directly perpetrated by the employer, the employee may rely on the provisions of the Labour Law to assert certain rights and claims. In this context, the employee may:
- Claim discrimination compensation on the grounds of a violation of the employer’s obligation of equal treatment (Labour Law, Article 5).
- Terminate the employment contract for just cause, provided that the necessary conditions are met (Labour Law, Article 24/II).
Although these provisions do not explicitly regulate the concept of mobbing, they nevertheless constitute important legal mechanisms that provide protection to employees against conduct amounting to psychological harassment in the workplace.
Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, File No: 2012/9-1925, Decision No: 2013/1407:
“An employee who has been subjected to psychological harassment by the employer may either terminate the employment contract for just cause or choose to continue working while exercising other legal remedies available to them (for example, filing a claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as in the present case). In such circumstances, once it is established that psychological harassment occurred in the specific case, an appropriate amount of moral compensation should be awarded in favour of the claimant. The incident experienced by the employee constitutes mobbing.”[3]
Purpose and Scope of the Presidential Circular on the Prevention of Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in the Workplace
One of the important regulatory measures aimed at combating psychological harassment in workplaces is the Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 on the Prevention of Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in Workplaces, published in the Official Gazette dated 6 March 2025. The Circular sets forth the measures that must be taken to prevent psychological harassment in working life and outlines the duties and responsibilities of relevant actors, including public institutions, employers, and managers.
As previously noted, psychological harassment in the workplace constitutes a serious problem that may adversely affect employees’ mental and physical health, reduce productivity, and undermine workplace harmony. Accordingly, the Circular aims to establish a more systematic and comprehensive framework for the prevention of such conduct. The regulation introduces various preventive mechanisms designed to promote a healthy, safe, and respectful working environment.
The Circular also repealed the earlier Circular No. 2011/2, which had been published in the Official Gazette dated 19 March 2011, and introduced a more comprehensive and up-to-date framework for combating psychological harassment. In this way, it seeks to strengthen policies and practices aimed at addressing mobbing in workplaces.
Under the new framework, employers are entrusted with significant responsibilities to protect employees from psychological harassment. In particular, employers are encouraged to organize training activities aimed at raising awareness among employees and to develop workplace policies and procedures designed to prevent mobbing. Compared to the previous regulation, additional safeguards have also been introduced to ensure the protection of the privacy of individuals subjected to psychological harassment, while also emphasizing that unfounded allegations of harassment should not harm the reputation and credibility of institutions and organizations.
The main provisions introduced by the Circular may be summarized as follows:
1. Establishment of complaint and reporting mechanisms
Employees who believe that they have been subjected to psychological harassment may apply to their employing institution or organization in accordance with the procedures set out in the relevant legislation. In addition, they are entitled to submit complaints to various public authorities, including the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER), the Petition Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, the Labour and Social Security Communication Center (ALO 170), the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye, and the Ombudsman Institution.
2. Protection of confidentiality
The Circular emphasizes the importance of maintaining confidentiality during the investigation and examination of allegations of psychological harassment. In this respect, due care must be exercised to safeguard the private lives of the parties involved, to ensure that complaints are examined diligently, and to prevent damage to the reputation of institutions and organizations as a result of unfounded allegations.
3. Encouragement of preventive provisions in collective bargaining agreements
In order to minimize the risk of psychological harassment in working life, the inclusion of preventive and protective provisions concerning mobbing in collective bargaining agreements is encouraged. This approach is considered important in strengthening institutional awareness and preventive mechanisms within workplaces.
In conclusion, the regulations introduced by the Circular impose significant responsibilities on employers and managers while aiming to ensure the protection of employees’ psychological integrity and to improve workplace conditions. Effective implementation of these provisions is expected to contribute to the creation of safer, more peaceful, and more productive working environments.
[1] Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 22nd Civil Chamber, File No: 2015/11958, Decision No: 2016/15623.
[2] Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 22nd Civil Chamber, File No: 2013/11788, Decision No: 2014/14008.
[3] Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, File No: 2012/9-1925, Decision No: 2013/1407.