Legal facts that must be proved in a mobbing allegation
Targeting, continuity and systematic conduct
Mobbing is not the same as a supervisor speaking harshly on a single occasion, every disagreement in the workplace, or an objective performance review. In a concrete allegation, it must be explained who said or did what to whom, and on which dates. Facts such as the withdrawal of duties without reason, systematic exclusion from meetings, the constant assignment of work that does not match the employee’s qualifications, humiliation in front of other employees, arbitrary disciplinary measures and forcing an employee to resign must be shown separately.
The employer has a managerial prerogative; however, this authority cannot be exercised in a way that harms the employee’s dignity, personality and health. A change of duties based on an objective reason, a performance evaluation applied to all personnel, or criticism required by the work is not mobbing on its own. The court assesses together how the events relate to one another, the genuine needs of management, and practices specific to the targeted person.
Breach of the employer’s duty of care
Article 417 of Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, imposes on the employer a duty to protect the employee’s personality, to provide a working environment consistent with the principles of good faith, and to take the measures necessary to prevent psychological harassment. The type of liability and the assessment of fault may differ depending on whether the pressure was exerted directly by the supervisor or by other employees. If the employer was aware of the complaint but did not take effective measures, this omission is independently significant. The court may seek evidence on the concrete facts, the date on which the employer became aware, and the measures it took.
Violation of personality rights, damage and causation
The existence of mobbing and entitlement to non-pecuniary or pecuniary compensation are connected but separate legal questions. In a compensation claim, which personality value was violated, and the causal link between the damage and the events, must also be discussed separately. Not every emotional distress gives rise to compensation; conversely, obtaining a psychiatric report because of mobbing is not mandatory in every case.
The approach to proof in Court of Cassation decisions
The Civil General Assembly decision on systematic reassignment
In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407, 2013, the sending of an employee who had worked in the same place for many years to a large number of different provinces in a short time, a practice that could not be explained by an objective business need, was assessed in terms of psychological harassment. The decision requires the events to be considered as a whole rather than one by one, and the employer’s defense regarding its practices to be tested. As for the pecuniary damage claims in the text, it called for an examination of actual expenses rather than assumptions. Text of the decision.
Not every low performance evaluation is mobbing
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dated April 29, 2024, E. 2024/3342, K. 2024/7399, it was held that pressure over sales targets, a change of duties and work outside the job description do not automatically constitute systematic psychological harassment. What matters is the objective basis of the measure applied in the workplace, the situation of other employees, and whether the practice was directed only at the plaintiff. Text of the decision.
Easing the burden of proof is different from removing it entirely
There are Court of Cassation decisions that allow indications to be relied on in mobbing disputes. In particular, the dissenting opinion to the decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 16, 2014, E. 2013/14296, K. 2014/17345, argues for the importance of witness accounts and prima facie proof. However, in that case the majority affirmed the first-instance court’s judgment dismissing the action. For this reason, the dissenting opinion cannot be presented as if it were the majority decision. The employee must set out concrete, consistent and mutually corroborating facts. Text of the decision.
How are witness statements assessed in mobbing cases?
The strength of a witness who observed directly
An event that the witness personally saw or heard is not of the same value as an event the witness learned about afterwards from the victimized employee. A strong statement explains who carried out the conduct, the approximate date and place, the content of the words, whether other persons were present, and whether similar acts were repeated. The accounts of the employer’s managers and employees must be assessed taking into account their relationship with the events and possible conflicts of interest.
Consistency between witness statements
One witness may describe not being invited to a meeting, another the constant demeaning remarks, and a third the arbitrary withdrawal of duties. The details of the statements need not be identical on every point; what matters is that the common facts corroborate one another. Vaguely saying “there was a lot of pressure” is weaker than a statement explaining when and how the event took place. The source of knowledge of opposing witnesses, and whether they were present when the event occurred, are also examined separately.
The position of former and current employees as witnesses
The fact that a witness still works at the workplace does not automatically invalidate the statement; nor does the fact that the witness has left show by itself that the statement is true. The hierarchy in the workplace, the witness’s connection with the events, any dispute with the parties, and the extent of the witness’s knowledge of the events must be assessed together. The allegations as a whole may be supported by the accounts of current employees, former employees and third parties.
WhatsApp, email and other digital correspondence
The context and integrity of the correspondence
In WhatsApp correspondence, what matters is not a single sentence but the date, the persons, the order of messages and the relevant parts of the conversation. Selecting messages and taking them out of context, being unable to tell whom a screenshot belongs to, and a conflict over the sending date can reduce the evidentiary value. The sender of the message, the account used, the original record and, where necessary, the possibility of a technical examination should be preserved.
Preserving one’s own correspondence is different from entering another person’s account
An employee properly preserving correspondence to which the employee is a party is legally different from entering another person’s phone, email account or closed group without permission. The latter may give rise to separate liability under the rules on confidentiality of communications, personal data and criminal law. Committing a new unlawful act in order to collect evidence cannot be recommended.
Corporate email and work documents
It is important to preserve, with dates, the complaints, instructions, replies and task-allocation correspondence found in the employee’s own corporate account. However, trade secrets, the personal data of third parties, customer data and the employer’s legitimate confidentiality interests must not be removed from the workplace disproportionately. The records needed for the dispute are, where possible, obtained through a formal court application for preservation of evidence, the production of documents by the court, or authorized channels.
Can audio recordings and camera footage be used?
It is wrong to treat a secret audio recording as automatically evidence
Evidence obtained unlawfully must be taken into account in light of the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code on communications, the interception of conversations and the confidentiality of private life, together with Article 189(2) of the HMK. It is not accurate to say of every secret recording either that it is “conclusive evidence” or that it “can never be used”; the conditions under which the recording was made, the right sought to be protected, the possibility of obtaining other evidence, proportionality and the concrete judicial assessment all matter. No general advice should be given to an employee to make a secret recording.
Camera recordings, KVKK and the retention obligation
Processing images through security cameras is also a personal data processing activity. The statements of the Personal Data Protection Authority (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu) on the use of cameras in the workplace stress the importance of the duty to inform, proportionality, purpose limitation, access control and retention period. An audio recording may constitute a heavier interference than footage. After the event, a request for lawful preservation of the footage must be made before it is deleted; an employee copying recordings through unauthorized access is not the right method. Official KVKK statement.
Obtaining documents and records through the court
If the employer does not hand over the records in its possession, the production of documents, the requisition of records from the relevant institutions, an expert examination and, where the conditions are met, preservation of evidence may be requested during the proceedings under the provisions of the HMK. In the petition, the relationship of the requested document to the concrete event, which disputed fact it will prove, and its probable location should be shown as clearly as possible.
Health reports, complaints and performance documents
The correct evidentiary function of health documents
Psychiatry, psychology, family medicine or hospital records can show the employee’s health condition, the dates of consultation and the need for treatment. However, a report by its mere existence does not prove that mobbing was practiced in the workplace or that a particular manager carried it out. It must be assessed together with the chronology of complaints and workplace data. Health data is special-category personal data; it should not be shared publicly.
HR applications, the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER), ALO 170 and internal complaints
Written complaints can show when the employer became aware and which concrete measures it took. The registration numbers assigned by the relevant authorities, the dates of notification, their replies and the outcome of any investigation should be kept. The fact that a complaint was filed does not by itself show that the allegation has been proved; on the other hand, the employer’s inaction after the complaint becomes significant in the examination of the duty of care. Circular No. 2025/3 specifies ALO 170, CİMER and other relevant application channels.
Changes of workplace and performance
The job description, earlier and later performance evaluations, shift lists, rotation decisions, records of handover of duties, meeting invitations and documents relating to the requirements of the work should be compared with one another. Whether the employer applied a similar measure to comparable employees can be decisive. Changes that are specific to the person, frequent and cannot be explained by business need may strengthen the indications of harassment.
An applicable event chronology in preparing evidence
Events should be collected, as far as possible, in a short, dated table. The table below shows a record layout; the rows are not hypothetical events but evidence headings to be filled in.
| Record field | Information to be entered | Evidentiary value |
|---|---|---|
| Date and time | The actual date of the event and the approximate time | Continuity and sequence |
| Description of the event | The words said or the act carried out | Concrete conduct |
| Perpetrator and witness | Persons who saw it first-hand | Identity and verification |
| Existing record | Email, correspondence, minutes, decision on duties | Independent confirmation |
| Result | Change of duties, effect on health or pay | Damage and causation |
| Complaint and reply | Date of application, receipt, response | The employer’s knowledge and measures |
The most common mistakes in proof
Describing only the result without writing down concrete events
The sentence “They wore me down” is a legal characterization; it must be shown which events produced this result. The date, the parties and the supporting records of every alleged act must be explained. A statement of facts should be built in place of generalizations.
Attempting to obtain evidence unlawfully
Accessing a third party’s account, downloading personal files without control, or systematically recording conversations in secret may create a new legal risk instead of strengthening the allegation. If a record is needed, a lawful application, a request to the employer to preserve it, and obtaining documents through the court should be explored first.
Missing termination and filing time limits
An employee’s choice of the termination route, a compensation claim or a reinstatement request may give rise to different procedures and time limits. In a reinstatement dispute in particular, the rule of applying to a mediator within one month from the notification of the termination made by the employer is important. It should not be assumed that this period will automatically apply in every psychological harassment case.
Conclusion
What is decisive in proving mobbing is not collecting many documents but explaining events whose dates and context are established through mutually corroborating, lawful evidence. Witnesses, digital records, changes of duties, complaints and health documents are assessed separately; when taken together, their evidentiary strength may increase. The employee should avoid obtaining evidence unlawfully, and the employer should investigate complaints and records impartially. The type of action and the time limits must be determined according to the specific claim.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can mobbing be proved without witnesses?
Yes. Although witnesses are important, an event chronology, email, a change of duties, complaint records and other lawful documents together may provide sufficient proof. Which evidence will suffice depends on the specific file.
Can a WhatsApp message at work be evidence?
It can. The authenticity of the message, whom it belongs to, the context in which all of it was written and how it was obtained are important. Unauthorized access to third parties’ accounts carries a separate legal risk.
Is a secretly made audio recording conclusive evidence?
No. The way the audio recording was obtained and the features of the specific case are examined separately. In general, it cannot be assumed that every secret recording can be used.
Can a mobbing action be brought without a psychiatric report?
Yes. A health report may support proof, but it is not the only evidence required in every case for the existence of mobbing. The function of the report for a claim of non-pecuniary or pecuniary damage is assessed separately.
How many witnesses are needed for mobbing?
There is no fixed number of witnesses that the law prescribes for all files. The consistency of the statements with first-hand knowledge, the concrete event and the other evidence matters more than the number.
If a supervisor shouted once, does that amount to mobbing?
A single event is, as a rule, distinguished from systematic mobbing; however, depending on the nature of the event, insult, violation of personality rights or another unlawful act may still be involved.
Can all of the employer’s records be examined in proving mobbing?
No. Only concrete and proportionate records related to the dispute should be requested. Unlimited examination of all personal data and trade secrets in the workplace is not possible.
Is an incident diary sufficient on its own?
A personal diary is an important chronology tool, but it is stronger when supported by other corroborating records.
What happens if the employer deletes the camera footage?
The retention of records and their production to the court are assessed according to the specific event and the legislation. It is important that the request for lawful preservation and production be made in time.
Is the approach to proof in a dissenting opinion a precedent?
A dissenting opinion can be examined as a legal view; it is not binding with the same weight as the holding of the majority, nor is it an affirmed principle.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 417 — UYAP Judicial Legislation (Adalet Mevzuatı).
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Article 189 — UYAP Judicial Legislation (Adalet Mevzuatı).
- Presidential Circular No. 2025/3, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) March 6, 2025, No. 32833.
- KVKK, Points to Consider in the Use of Security Camera Systems in Workplaces.
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407, 2013.
- Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi), April 29, 2024, E. 2024/3342, K. 2024/7399.
- Court of Cassation 22nd Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesi), June 16, 2014, E. 2013/14296, K. 2014/17345 (distinction of the dissenting opinion).