Which compensation can be claimed for mobbing?
The legal function of non-pecuniary compensation
Non-pecuniary compensation is a private-law institution aimed at redressing the non-pecuniary harm caused by an unlawful attack on personality values. Humiliation in the workplace, systematic exclusion, damage to reputation, threats or continuous attacks directed at personality rights may form the basis of non-pecuniary compensation. Article 58 of Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), regulates non-pecuniary compensation arising from injury to personality rights; TBK Art. 417 is also important for the employer’s liability in the employment relationship.
For compensation to be awarded, the violation of personality rights must be established in concrete terms. It cannot be assumed that all of the alleged events were carried out intentionally by the employer. The employee must show, by evaluating their own account, management records, witness statements and health data together, which conduct interfered with their personality rights and in what respect.
The scope of pecuniary damage
Loss of income caused by mobbing, treatment expenses, documented transportation or additional costs, and specific and provable losses resulting from a change of job may be the subject of pecuniary compensation, provided that an adequate causal link with the event can be established. It cannot be said that the employer will necessarily pay every expense; legal liability, the reality of the damage, whether it was necessary and reasonable, and payments previously made by the employer are examined separately.
In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407, whether frequent and unexplained assignments amounted to psychological harassment was discussed, and it was stated that the employee’s pecuniary damage claim concerning transportation, meal and accommodation items must be assessed on the basis of documents, without assumptions and without double payment. Text of the decision.
Severance pay is a separate type of claim
Where the employee terminates the employment contract for cause because of mobbing, severance pay (kıdem tazminatı) comes into question if its conditions are met. However, severance pay is not identical to compensation for non-pecuniary harm; the existence of one does not automatically give rise to the other. The consequences of termination for cause, notice pay (ihbar tazminatı) and reinstatement should not be applied to the employee within the same framework. When an employee ends the employment relationship themselves for cause, they do not, as a rule, receive notice pay.
Legal bases of liability for compensation
TBK Art. 417: liability arising from breach of contract
The source of the employer’s obligation to protect the employee and to prevent psychological harassment is TBK Art. 417. The provision provides that the employee’s losses arising from violation of personality rights through the employer’s conduct contrary to the law and the contract may be subject to the provisions on breach of contract. The person who carries out the harassment may be a manager of the employer or another employee; the employer’s knowledge, its ability to intervene and the measures it took are examined separately.
TBK Art. 49 and Art. 58: tort and personality rights
The tort liability of the person who personally carries out the harassment may be assessed under TBK Art. 49 and, as to violation of personality rights, Art. 58. However, against whom the claim is to be brought may vary depending on the party to the employment relationship, the competent court and the contractual or tortious nature of the claim. It cannot be said that the employer is automatically liable to the same extent for every act of every employee.
Claims of physical or psychological harm
Where there is physical or psychological harm supported by concrete medical data, claims connected with the regime for bodily harm, including TBK Art. 54 and Art. 56, may come into question. However, the statement “I experienced psychological distress” alone does not directly show the amount of pecuniary compensation; items such as treatment expenses, temporary or permanent incapacity for work and loss of earnings may require separate documents and an expert examination.
How is the existence of mobbing proved in a compensation claim?
Assessing each event individually and as a whole
The plaintiff’s account of events must be presented together with the date, the perpetrator, the act, the witnesses, the workplace measure and the outcome. It may not be possible to conclude that mobbing exists from a single change of duties. By contrast, numerous arbitrary assignments that complement one another, complaints on which no measures were taken, an aim of pushing the employee out of the workplace and frequently repeated humiliation can together form a strong indication.
The role of witnesses and workplace documents
The detailed statements of witnesses who directly saw the events, emails, WhatsApp messages, performance reports, disciplinary records, internal complaints, changes of duties and other documents consistent with the witnesses are assessed together. The employer’s defense of an “ordinary management measure” must be tested against a comparison of how the same measure was applied to employees in the same situation and against concrete business grounds.
A health report is not the only required evidence
In a claim for non-pecuniary harm arising from psychological harassment, health records may be important; however, it cannot be said that a health report alone proves the mobbing or that it is mandatory in every case. The relationship of the medical data to the beginning and continuation of the events is assessed; since health information is special-category personal data, confidentiality is protected.
Prima facie proof and indications in the Court of Cassation
In Court of Cassation practice, the difficulty for the employee of proving mobbing is recognized. However, the expression “prima facie proof” does not mean that the claim is accepted without any concrete evidence. Strong and consistent indications, witness statements and workplace records are assessed together. In the decision of the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 16, 2014, E. 2013/14296, K. 2014/17345, the majority affirmed the judgment of dismissal; the detailed opinion on indications and prima facie proof was set out particularly in the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion should not be presented as if it were the majority holding. Text of the decision.
Conduct that does not amount to mobbing and the employer’s defense
Objective performance monitoring
The employer’s setting of documented performance targets, giving instructions consistent with the job description or making criticism required by the work is, as a rule, within its managerial prerogative. However, a different outcome may arise if the criticism has become demeaning and has turned into a systematic series of measures targeting a particular employee. The employer must be able to explain to whom and under what objective conditions its instructions were applied.
A 2024 example of a rejected claim
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, the question arose of rejecting a claim for non-pecuniary compensation where it could not be shown that the allegations concerning performance pressure and a change of duties amounted to systematic psychological harassment specific to the plaintiff. This decision clearly shows that not every workplace difficulty connected with an allegation of mobbing gives rise to non-pecuniary compensation. Text of the decision.
The employer proving that it took measures
Prompt examination of the complaint, hearing the parties, an independent investigation and protective measures may show that the employer attempted to fulfill its duty of care. However, a policy prepared merely for form, a biased investigation that produces a wrong outcome, or a change of duties amounting to retaliation may not be sufficient as a defense.
How is the amount of compensation determined?
There is no fixed schedule for non-pecuniary compensation
The court takes into account the seriousness and continuity of the conduct, the degree of interference with personality rights, the effect on the victim, the circumstances of the parties and the criteria of equity. There is no statutory fixed table such as “this much for each year” or “the same amount for every mobbing incident.” Pecuniary damage, on the other hand, is determined on the basis of concrete documents, calculation and, if necessary, an expert report.
Loss of wages, treatment expenses and double recovery
In pecuniary compensation, the same damage cannot be recovered twice under severance pay, an employment claim, an insurance payment or another item. The employee must clearly show what financial loss they suffered and how this loss is connected to the mobbing. Hypothetical future earnings should not be presented as certain damage.
Limitation periods and time limits for suit
Distinguishing a contractual claim from a tort claim
It cannot be said that every compensation claim brought because of mobbing is subject to a single, unchanging limitation period. If the claim is based on breach of the employer’s contractual obligation under TBK Art. 417, the contractual provisions and the relevant special limitation rules; if it is based directly on tort, TBK Art. 72; and with regard to employment claims, the relevant five-year provisions are examined separately. A definitive period must not be calculated without determining the nature of the concrete claim, the date of the damage, the time of learning of it and the party against whom the claim is directed.
Mediation as a condition precedent to suit
Under Article 3 of Law No. 7036 on Labor Courts, in employee and employer receivables and compensation claims arising from the employment relationship, recourse to mediation is required before suit is filed, provided that the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and the type of dispute allow it. Whether the claim is a tort claim directed directly at a third person, party status and the competent court require separate assessment. The presence of a mobbing allegation does not mean that every dispute will automatically be heard in a labor court.
Civil servants and public-sector workers
For compensation claims of civil servants under Civil Servants Law No. 657 and other public personnel arising from the acts and actions of the administration, administrative court procedure may come into play. By contrast, a public-sector worker, if within the scope of an employment contract, is subject to a different procedure. For public officials, the special application and time-limit rules in Articles 12 and 13 of Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 (İYUK) must be observed.
Pre-suit demand and evidence plan
| Matter to examine | Documents | Legal function |
|---|---|---|
| Harassing conduct | Dated events, witnesses, messages | Act and continuity |
| Employer’s knowledge | Complaint, HR record, reply | Duty of care and breach |
| Non-pecuniary harm | Account of the concrete impact, health data if necessary | Seriousness of the violation |
| Pecuniary damage | Invoices, bank records, wages, expense documents | Amount and causation |
| Termination and severance | Notice of termination, service record, wage records | Separate employment claim |
| Time limits and procedure | Notification, mediation, administrative application | Preventing loss of rights |
Conclusion
The basis of legal success in seeking compensation for mobbing is to prove separately the violated personality right and the damage claimed, in addition to showing the systematic nature of the conduct. Non-pecuniary compensation, severance pay and pecuniary damage items must not be confused with one another; the employer’s defense of objective managerial authority must be examined against concrete records. Focusing only on the amount, without determining the correct type of action, the competent court, mediation and the limitation period, creates a risk of loss of rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is mobbing compensation?
The law does not set a fixed amount for each event. Non-pecuniary compensation is determined according to equity, and pecuniary compensation according to the actual damage that is proved.
If mobbing is proved, is non-pecuniary compensation always awarded?
Not automatically. The violation of personality rights and the other legal conditions of compensation are assessed together.
Can severance pay and non-pecuniary compensation be claimed in the same suit?
They can be claimed together if the rules on jurisdiction and procedure are satisfied; these are receivables with different legal bases.
Can an employee without a health report claim non-pecuniary compensation?
Yes, but the violation and the non-pecuniary harm must be explained with concrete evidence. A health report is not the only required evidence.
Can a manager also be personally liable?
Depending on the conditions, tort liability may be discussed. The employer’s contractual liability and the competent court are separate matters.
Does a change of workplace count as mobbing?
Not in every case. Conduct that is systematic, targeted and cannot be explained by an objective business need is what matters.
Is mediation required in non-pecuniary compensation suits?
As a rule, it is required for compensation claims arising from the employment relationship and falling within the jurisdiction of the labor court; the party against whom the claim is directed and its nature must also be checked.
What is the limitation period for mobbing compensation?
It may vary depending on whether the claim is for breach of contract, tort or a special employment claim. A generalization of a single period is not correct.
Can the employer argue that it received no complaint?
It may do so depending on the circumstances of the process; however, whether the employer was aware, or should have been aware, can be assessed on the basis of the facts.
Is a civil servant’s mobbing compensation claim also heard in a labor court?
Generally no; for a civil servant’s public-law status and for damage arising from the administration, the administrative court route must be assessed separately.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Articles 49, 58, 72, 112, 417.
- Law No. 7036 on Labor Courts, Article 3.
- Labor Law No. 4857.
- Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407.
- 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.