What is the basis of the employer's legal liability?
TBK Article 417 and the protection of the employee's personality
Article 417 of Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 imposes on the employer a duty, within the employment relationship, to protect the employee's personality, to ensure a workplace order consistent with the principles of good faith, to prevent psychological and sexual harassment, and to take the measures necessary to keep the victim from suffering further harm. Compensation claims arising from a violation of the employee's health or personality rights are examined, depending on the circumstances, under the provisions on breach of contract. Even where the employer did not personally engage in the conduct, it matters whether the employer failed to take the necessary supervisory and protective measures regarding harassment among managers and coworkers.
The relationship between occupational health and safety and psychosocial risks
Law No. 6331 regulates the employer's obligations to ensure employees' work-related health and safety and to prevent risks. The assessment of psychosocial risks is also important with respect to the risks of harassment, excessive pressure, conflict and violence in the working environment. Not every complaint about management is automatically an occupational health and safety violation; however, indifference to known and foreseeable risks may be weighed against the employer from the standpoint of the duty of care.
The line between managerial prerogative and arbitrary pressure
Performance monitoring, disciplinary action, the allocation of duties and business decision-making fall within the employer's sphere of authority. These powers must be exercised objectively, proportionately, equally and in a manner consistent with the needs of the work. Repeated actions that appear to be performance oversight but are in reality aimed at wearing down a particular employee may constitute psychological harassment. Management decisions that are explained by a genuine need, applied in a similar way to other employees and documented are assessed differently.
What did Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 introduce?
The date and scope of the circular
Circular No. 2025/3 on the "Prevention of Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in Workplaces" was published in the Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) dated March 6, 2025, No. 32833. By repealing the earlier Circular No. 2011/2, it set out the new structure of the Board for Combating Psychological Harassment (Psikolojik Tacizle Mücadele Kurulu). It provides that employers, managers and employees in the public and private sectors refrain from conduct that constitutes harassment, and that employers monitor risks and develop preventive and protective policies. Text of the circular.
Training, information and in-house implementation
The circular provides for raising awareness of psychological harassment, informing employees about their rights and the application mechanisms, expanding training, and paying attention to protective provisions in collective labor agreements. An employer should not be satisfied with a text that merely states "mobbing is prohibited." Managers must know which conduct is risky, what the person who receives a complaint should do, and how witnesses and victims are to be protected.
Confidentiality, private life and untrue allegations
The circular specifically emphasizes that investigations be conducted in confidence and that individuals' private lives be protected. At the same time, it calls for sensitivity so that the reputation of institutions is not harmed by untrue allegations. The consequence is that the complainant is not presumed to be right in advance, nor the person complained about presumed guilty in advance. The process must be designed to investigate impartially whether the allegations are true or false.
Application channels
In addition to in-house application, Circular No. 2025/3 lists the Presidential Communication Center (CİMER), the Petition Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM Dilekçe Komisyonu), ALO 170, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (TİHEK) and the Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu). However, each authority has different subject-matter competence and admissibility conditions. For example, for TİHEK's examination of "workplace bullying" (işyerinde yıldırma) under Law No. 6701, a connection to one of the grounds of discrimination in the Law is, as a rule, required. Not every mobbing allegation automatically falls within TİHEK's remit. TİHEK's explanation.
How should an in-house mobbing policy be prepared?
Definition, scope and concrete examples
The policy should explain that mobbing is a series of conduct of a systematic nature, that it may also occur in digital environments connected with the workplace and the employment relationship, and that both managers and employees at the same level may be perpetrators of harassment. Examples may include insults, systematic exclusion, demeaning criticism, stripping of authority, arbitrary assignment of duties and forcing an employee to resign. However, the policy should not be drafted so broadly that it treats every objection or lawful performance measure as mobbing.
An accessible and secure complaint channel
A complaint mechanism that passes only through the approval of the manager accused of harassment may not work in practice. There must be an alternative channel through which the employee can reach HR, compliance, the board of directors/senior management or an independent authorized unit. Oral complaints must be recorded securely in minutes; receipt of the complaint must be confirmed; and documents must be reviewed by a limited number of authorized persons. Communication channels must be announced not merely in the rules but in a place employees can reach.
Preventing retaliation and recurrence
Punishing the employee who complained, arbitrarily changing the employee's shift, excluding the employee further from meetings or putting pressure on witnesses may aggravate the harassment. Protective measures for the victim and witnesses should be considered while the investigation is under way. The measures must be proportionate, with regard also to the right of the person complained about to be heard and the basic safeguards relating to the presumption of innocence.
How is an internal investigation conducted?
Preliminary assessment and designation of the responsible person
At the first stage, the subject of the complaint, possible urgent risks, the alleged perpetrator, the witnesses and the available evidence are identified. If the allegation of harassment is directed at senior managers, those persons must not conduct the review on their own. The reviewer should be assessed for independence, impartiality and conflict of interest.
Statements of the parties and evidence
Statements must be taken separately from the complainant and the person complained about; witnesses must be heard in light of the context of the events; and the relevant correspondence, records of changes of duties and disciplinary records must be reviewed in a lawful manner. A one-sided report with a predetermined outcome must not be prepared. The systematic aspect of the allegation should be compared against dated facts, and the argument of objective business necessity against management documents.
Interim measures and the final decision
If there is an urgent risk in terms of health and safety, proportionate measures may be taken, such as reducing contact between the parties, protecting the confidentiality of the complaint, temporarily changing the reporting line or similar steps. Measures must not automatically disadvantage the employee who claims to have been harassed. At the end of the review, the events that were verified, the allegations that could not be verified, the evaluation criteria and the protective/preventive measures to be taken must be recorded.
Disciplinary action and termination of the employment contract
Taking action against the perpetrator
Where insults, threats, verbal or physical attacks (sataşma) or serious systematic harassment at the workplace are verified, various measures, from a warning to termination of the employment contract, may come into consideration. However, a distinction must be made between termination for cause under Article 25/II of the Labor Law and termination for valid reason (geçerli fesih) under Article 18. For termination for cause, the grounds and time periods provided in the Law matter; for termination for valid reason, the principle that termination is a last resort and the requirement to obtain the employee's defense statement (savunma) matter.
Protecting the complainant does not create an obligation to terminate the employment contract
The employer's task is not, as a first reflex, to dismiss one of the employees, but to stop the risk and the violation of rights. Proportionate measures connected with the seriousness of the conduct, the perpetrator's position and the likelihood of recurrence must be applied. Moving the complainant to another department may be considered only with regard to the genuine need for protection and the complainant's working-condition rights.
Protection of personal data and professional secrecy
Limits on access to documents concerning the allegation
Investigation documents may contain health reports, disciplinary records, employee performance and information on the private lives of third parties. Under Law No. 6698, these records must be processed only for the stated purpose; personal data that is not necessary must not be shared. Access must be limited to persons with a function in the investigation, and appropriate retention and destruction procedures must be applied.
Limits on camera and audio recordings
The requirements emphasized by the Personal Data Protection Authority (KVKK) for the use of security cameras at the workplace, namely notice, purpose, proportionality, retention and access limits, apply. The need for an investigation does not legitimize covert audio recording of all employees. Systematic audio recording without the knowledge of the persons concerned may create serious legal risk. KVKK explanation on workplace cameras.
The employer's liability for compensation and other legal liabilities
Consequences of breach of the duty of care
If the employer fails to take the necessary measures or itself commits the harassment, liability for compensation may arise depending on the conditions of violation of personality rights, damage and causation. Non-pecuniary damages are not automatic; the duration and nature of the events, their effect on the employee's situation and the concrete evidence are assessed. The employer may also become liable for severance pay (kıdem tazminatı) because of the employee's termination for cause.
Even if mobbing cannot be proved, health and safety measures may be debated
In the file of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dated June 12, 2024, E. 2024/6860, K. 2024/9710, the elements of mobbing and the employer's duty to protect the employee's health were separated from one another. This distinction is important: not every instance of poor management may be characterized as mobbing; however, the employer's indifference to known and manageable risks may still be subject to legal scrutiny. Text of the decision.
Practical employer checklist
| Control area | Expected in-house record | Legal and operational function |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | Clear mobbing and discrimination rules | Standard of conduct |
| Complaint | Secure alternative complaint channel | Access and impartiality |
| Risk | Psychosocial risk and workplace-operations assessment | Duty of prevention |
| Review | Conflict-of-interest check, written assessment | Procedure and impartiality |
| Evidence | Dated events, parties, witnesses and relevant records | Reviewability |
| Protection | Retaliation prevention and proportionate interim measures | Preventing the harm from growing |
| KVKK | Access authorization, retention and destruction | Privacy |
| Monitoring | Follow-up check after measures | Effectiveness and continuity |
Conclusion
An employer's success in combating mobbing depends not only on issuing a disciplinary decision after a complaint arrives, but on the reliable prevention and review system it has established in advance. TBK Article 417 and Circular No. 2025/3 clearly set out the active responsibility of employers and managers. Confidentiality, impartiality, prevention of retaliation, accuracy of records and proportionate measures both protect the employee and reduce the institution's legal risks. The circular, the law, the institutional policy and the judicial conditions for compensation must not be confused with one another.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it enough for the employer to have a written mobbing policy?
No. The policy must be known to employees, the complaint channels must be accessible, and the policy must actually be applied when a violation occurs.
Is Circular No. 2025/3 directed at all employers?
Yes, it contains provisions on the preventive and protective responsibilities of employers and managers in both the public and private sectors. The legal basis of concrete sanctions is determined separately.
Should the employer dismiss someone immediately upon every complaint?
No. Impartial investigation, proportionality and the statutory conditions for termination must be applied.
Can the manager who is the subject of the complaint conduct the investigation himself or herself?
This creates a serious risk of partiality and conflict of interest. Where possible, an independent authorized person should conduct the review.
Can the employer be held liable for harassment by coworkers?
Yes, depending on the circumstances. What matters is whether the employer knew or should have known, whether it had the opportunity to take measures, and whether it fulfilled its obligations.
If mobbing is not proved, is the complainant necessarily punished?
No. Failure to prove an allegation and knowingly making an untrue accusation are separate matters.
Does TİHEK examine every mobbing complaint?
No. A connection to the protected grounds of discrimination under Law No. 6701 and the other admissibility conditions are required.
Can the employer show complaint documents to all staff?
No. Under the principles of personal data protection and privacy, access must be limited to the purpose.
Does an application to ALO 170 suspend the time limit for a labor lawsuit?
Such an automatic result cannot generally be drawn. The effect of each application route on time limits is determined separately under the relevant regulation.
Does organizing training eliminate a harassment allegation?
No. Training is a preventive tool; investigation of the concrete event and the necessary intervention are still required.
Sources and legal bases
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 417.
- Labor Law No. 4857.
- Presidential Circular No. 2025/3, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) of March 6, 2025, No. 32833.
- TİHEK, press statement on the Circular, March 7, 2025.
- KVKK, Security Camera Systems at Workplaces.
- Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 9. HD), June 12, 2024, E. 2024/6860, K. 2024/9710.