What is psychological harassment (mobbing) at work?
The legal meaning of mobbing
Mobbing describes systematic conduct by a superior, the employer, a colleague at the same level or a subordinate that targets a person and aims to make their working life unbearable, to exclude them or to intimidate them. The concept is not limited to physical violence. It may also occur through words, correspondence, the allocation of tasks, promotion decisions, isolation from the work environment and the deliberate disruption of social relationships. What matters is the continuity of the conduct, the person it is directed at, its context and the effect it creates as a whole.
Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 of March 6, 2025 deals with conduct such as the intentional and systematic humiliation, belittling, exclusion or intimidation of employees at the workplace over a certain period as psychological harassment. Circular, Official Gazette of 06.03.2025, No. 32833.
Systematic nature, continuity and being targeted
In a mobbing review, three questions generally come to the fore: Is the conduct directed at a single employee or a particular group of employees? Has it been repeated around the same purpose or result? Does the conduct show a pattern, of sufficient continuity, that harms the employee’s personality, reputation, employment relationship or peace at work? The assessment is based not only on the number of incidents but on the intensity and frequency of the conduct, on whether the acts complement one another, and on the specific working environment.
In law there is no fixed requirement of duration or number, valid for every incident, such as “mobbing must last six months” or “there must be one incident a week”. The facts of duration, repetition and intent are assessed in the case as a whole. A single serious act may give rise to other legal sanctions even if it is not accepted as mobbing.
The difference between psychological harassment and ordinary workplace tension
Between a manager and an employee there may be a mismatch of expectations, criticism, a disciplinary warning, a debate about targets or an internal dispute. For these incidents to be regarded as mobbing, it is not enough that they cause the employee stress. It is examined whether the criticism rests on an objective reason, whether its method is humiliating, how other employees in similar jobs are treated and whether there is an intent to intimidate behind the measures. The employer’s managerial prerogative is not an authority to humiliate the employee or to force them to leave the job.
Which conduct may be regarded as mobbing?
Humiliation and discrediting in front of others
Constantly reprimanding the employee in meetings, devaluing the work done without any objective review, accusing them of incompetence in front of colleagues, subjecting them to belittling forms of address, systematically spreading false rumors about them or eroding their professional reputation may be signs of psychological harassment. Saying the same words once and keeping up a humiliating attitude for months are not assessed in the same way; however, a single insult may itself be unlawful.
Exclusion from meetings, the flow of information and the team
Systematically not being invited to meetings within one’s area of duty, cutting off access essential to the work, being removed from corporate correspondence, steering team members not to communicate with the person or deliberately withholding necessary information may form a mobbing pattern. However, a decision not to invite someone to a particular meeting or not to include them in a project is not harassment in itself if it can be explained objectively by the needs of the work.
Intimidation through workload or leaving without duties
Constantly giving the employee impossible deadlines, loading them with markedly more work than other employees without reasons, arbitrarily rejecting the work they have completed, neutralizing them by giving no tasks at all or insistently keeping them in demeaning tasks incompatible with their professional qualifications may, when assessed together with other signs, acquire the character of psychological harassment. Workload that arises from genuine need and objective staff planning is different.
Constant and unjustified changes of workplace
It is important if an employee is forced to change branches or cities at short intervals in a way not applied to other employees, if the relocation cannot be explained by a concrete operational reason, or if it is used in a way that particularly burdens family and social life. In changes of duty, the rules on material changes under Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857, the contract provisions and the limits of the employer’s managerial prerogative must be addressed separately.
Forcing resignation and systematic threats
Threats such as “if you don’t resign, we will finish you” or “you can’t survive here”, the creation of untrue performance files, creating a constant fear of dismissal, or repeated disciplinary measures aimed at suppressing the person’s will may, in the incident as a whole, be serious indicators of mobbing. Documents signed under pressure must be examined separately as to the validity of the resignation statement and the genuineness of the intent to terminate.
Psychological harassment through digital channels
Corporate e-mail, internal messaging systems, WhatsApp work groups and online meetings may also be environments in which psychological harassment takes place. Demeaning messages sent continuously at night, a work organization that deliberately excludes the employee from the group, or humiliation on platforms that everyone can see can be supported by electronic records. However, the message’s connection to the employment relationship, its effect on the employee and the lawfulness of how the records were obtained must be assessed separately.
Conduct overlapping with sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation
Sexually charged words, unwanted advances, exclusion because of sex or disability, and retaliation after a request for legal redress may be part of a mobbing pattern. However, for sexual harassment or discrimination to be unlawful, the systematic nature and continuity specific to mobbing need not be present in every case. Articles 5, 24 and 25 of the Labor Law, Law No. 6701 and, where necessary, the provisions of the Turkish Penal Code are assessed separately.
Which conduct is not mobbing by itself?
The employer’s lawful supervision and performance evaluation
Tracking measurable targets, requiring work to be completed on time, conducting an objective performance evaluation, giving a documented warning and applying disciplinary rules equally are, in general, part of the managerial prerogative. The characterization may change if these are used arbitrarily, systematically, in a humiliating way or only to intimidate a particular person.
Not every harsh word constitutes mobbing
A one-off insult, threat or physical assault may not form a mobbing pattern. However, it may be examined separately for an attack on personality rights, termination for cause, compensation and criminal liability. The employee’s rights do not disappear altogether on the ground that “mobbing could not be proved”.
The distinction between an operational decision and an intent to intimidate
Decisions taken because of reasonable restructuring, the closure of the job or unit, temporary staffing needs, objective allocation of tasks and a documented performance problem cannot by themselves be regarded as psychological harassment. However, if a measure that looks like a management decision is in fact applied selectively to push the employee toward resignation, this may strengthen the allegation. The real reason for the decision and the criteria applied to other employees must be examined.
Who can commit psychological harassment and who is liable?
Mobbing committed by the employer or a manager
Psychological harassment may be committed directly by the employer, the company manager, a manager, a team leader or the human resources officer. What matters is not the job title of the person exercising authority but their actual conduct and whether they act on behalf of the employer. The effect of managers’ acts on the employer’s duty of protection and possible liability for compensation is examined separately.
Mobbing committed by colleagues at the same level and by subordinates
Mobbing does not occur only from top to bottom; systematic exclusion by employees at the same level or intimidating conduct by subordinates toward a manager is also possible. The employer’s duty to protect employees also applies when the harassment is committed by another employee. Failing to carry out an effective investigation after learning of the complaint may increase liability.
Conduct of customers and third persons
Repeated aggressive conduct by a customer, contractor or a third person receiving the service is also important for the safety of the working environment. Although it cannot be said that this will be characterized as mobbing in law in every case, the employer is obliged to protect its employee against a risk it knows of and can prevent.
The legal bases of psychological harassment at work
Turkish Code of Obligations Article 417: protection of the employee’s personality
Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 regulates the employer’s duty to protect the employee’s personality, to show respect and to provide a working order in accordance with the principles of honesty. The Code expressly lists among the employer’s obligations preventing psychological and sexual harassment and taking measures so that employees who have been harassed are not harmed further. This provision concerns not only the manager who personally commits the harassment but also the employer who fails to provide the necessary protection against harassment. TBK Article 417, Ministry of Justice legislation.
Labor Law Articles 5, 22, 24 and the job security provisions
Article 5 of the Labor Law regulates the principle of equal treatment and certain prohibitions of discrimination; Article 22 regulates material changes in working conditions; Article 24 regulates the employee’s right of immediate termination for cause. In terminations based on the employer’s conduct, the job security rules in Articles 18–21 are important. In the same incident, different legal assessments can be made as regards breach of the duty of equal treatment, personality rights, material change, termination for cause and reinstatement. Labor Law No. 4857.
Occupational health and safety regulations
Under Article 4 of Law No. 6331, the employer has obligations to prevent work-related health and safety risks, to provide training and information, to set up an organization and to carry out risk assessment. Psychosocial risks are also examined from the standpoint of occupational health and safety, depending on the characteristics of the incident. After an employee’s complaint, acting only on paper may not be sufficient. Ministry of Health – Employer’s obligations.
The Turkish Civil Code and the provisions on non-pecuniary damages
Articles 24–25 of the Turkish Civil Code regulate protection against unlawful attacks on personality rights. Article 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations makes it possible to request appropriate redress for non-pecuniary harm arising from an injury to personality rights. Whether the incident at the workplace is based on liability arising from the employment contract, tort or protection of personality rights is important for jurisdiction, standing to be sued, proof and limitation. TBK Articles 58 and 417.
Constitutional rights and the protection of public officials
Article 17 of the Constitution regulates the protection of a person’s corporeal and spiritual existence; Article 20, the privacy of private life; Article 49, the right to work. For public officials, personnel and disciplinary legislation specific to their status and the routes of administrative law may also come into play. The application and filing periods of a private-law employee and a civil servant are not all the same.
What regulations did Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 introduce?
The date and scope of the Circular and its effect on the earlier circular
Circular No. 2025/3 dated March 5, 2025 was published in the Official Gazette No. 32833 dated March 6, 2025. The old Circular No. 2011/2 was repealed. For this reason, the practice in 2026 should not be explained by relying only on the 2011 text. The Circular does not create an independent and automatic right to compensation for every specific dispute; it offers an administrative and institutional framework for the application of existing legislation and the development of prevention policies.
The restructuring of the Board for Combating Psychological Harassment
The Circular re-established the Board for Combating Psychological Harassment (Psikolojik Tacizle Mücadele Kurulu) within the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, envisaging the participation of the relevant ministries, public institutions, confederations of employees, employers and public servants, and experts. The Board has duties such as contributing to the determination of policies, training and information, research, investigation, and preparing guides and reports.
Preventive obligations for employers and managers
Employers and managers are expected to take psychological harassment risks into account, to develop preventive and protective policies, and to inform employees of training, awareness and application mechanisms. A mobbing complaint should be assessed not only as a problem between individuals but also within the workplace’s management and risk prevention system.
Confidentiality, untrue allegations and collective agreements
The Circular emphasizes the protection of private life and confidentiality in the examination of complaints, the prompt handling of applications, and that the reputation of institutions should not be harmed by untrue allegations. It also asks that care be taken to include preventive provisions in collective employment agreements and collective agreements. The privacy of the complainant and the right of defense of the person against whom allegations are made must be protected together.
ALO 170 and other channels of application
The Circular provides for information and support through psychologists on duty on the ALO 170 line and reminds of channels such as in-house applications, CİMER, the Petition Committee of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), the Ministry, TİHEK and KDK. However, each of these channels differs in its field of competence, conditions of application and legal result. An application to ALO 170 does not, for example, replace the mediation application required for reinstatement. Circular No. 2025/3.
The employer’s responsibility to prevent psychological harassment and to investigate complaints
Setting up an effective internal application mechanism
A corporate policy should not consist only of an announcement that “mobbing is prohibited”. The employee must know to whom, how and within what time they can apply, which alternative channel exists when the manager is a party to the complaint, and how their personal data will be protected. Applications should be recorded; an impartial investigation arrangement suited to the nature of the work should be set up.
Impartial investigation of the incident and the right of defense
The person assessing the complaint should interview the parties separately, examine whether the witnesses have direct knowledge and whether the dates are consistent. Performance reports, e-mails, shift lists, work allocation, job descriptions and leave records should be compared; the person against whom the allegation is made should be given an opportunity to defend themselves. It cannot be accepted that mobbing took place merely because there is a complaint, or that it did not take place merely because the manager denies it.
Protective measures and measures against retaliation
While the investigation continues, temporary organizational measures may be taken so as not to harm the employee further. Moving the complainant to a worse position without reason, threatening them with dismissal or excluding them from colleagues may aggravate the allegation. The scope of the protective measure should be proportionate to the concrete risk; it should not turn into a penalty against the complainant.
Personal and corporate liability of company managers
The addressee of a claim for compensation is not automatically, in every incident, only the manager personally or only the company. It must be examined with whom the employee has a contract, who actually committed the acts, whether the employer was aware, whether it fulfilled its duty of prevention and on which legal ground the claim is based. The employer’s breach of its duty of protection under TBK Article 417 may give rise to contractual liability; the personal tort liability of the person who committed the act may also be discussed separately.
What steps should an employee exposed to mobbing follow?
Recording the incidents in chronological order
A concrete incident timeline should be created: the date, time and place of the incident, who said or did what, witnesses, correspondence, assignment decisions and subsequent consequences should be kept separate from one another. Instead of a general sentence such as “I was constantly mobbed”, the beginning, repetition, connection and effect of concrete acts should be shown.
Making a written and measured application to the workplace
Depending on the nature of the incident, a written application may be made to human resources, senior management, the ethics line, the board or the competent superior. In the application, dated incidents and the measures requested should appear clearly, rather than accusatory and unconfirmed labels. The employer’s response to the notice, or its silence, may acquire importance in a later assessment of liability. An internal complaint is not a general precondition for termination for cause or for a lawsuit in every case; the special conditions of the specific legal route are determined separately.
Documenting the health effect
If sleep disorders, anxiety, burnout or another health problem arises as a result of psychological harassment, applying to the relevant health institution and the medical records may help in assessing the harm and the causal connection. A psychiatric diagnosis or health report is not mandatory in every file for the existence of mobbing. However, expert evaluation may become important particularly for pecuniary damage, loss of working capacity and compensation based on the health effect.
Carrying out a risk analysis before terminating the employment contract immediately
An employee who is considering leaving the job because of mobbing should assess the basis of the termination statement, whether there is a cause under Article 24, the discussion of the Article 26 period, the state of the evidence and the counter-defenses the employer may raise. A vague and sudden statement such as “I am resigning for personal reasons” may make it harder to prove the real reason for leaving later. However, it cannot be said that a notary notice is mandatory in every case; what matters is proof of the notice and of its reaching the other party.
How is mobbing proved? Evidence and assessment of proof
An assessment of the incidents and indications as a whole, rather than a single document
Psychological harassment often takes place in a closed environment, and direct written evidence may not exist for every incident. Witness statements, e-mails and messages, workplace minutes, performance and promotion records, changes of workplace, access records and medical documents are assessed together as facts that corroborate one another. The temporal relationship between the incidents is particularly important.
The role of witness statements
The statement of a witness who personally witnessed the incident and the statement of a person relaying what they heard from someone else do not have the same evidentiary value. The witness’s closeness to the parties, period of employment, the date on which they observed the incident and whether their account agrees with other records are examined. The statements of current and former employees should not be excluded merely because they favor or disfavor one party.
E-mails, messages, task schedules and corporate records
Demeaning e-mails sent directly by the manager, the historical change in work allocation, the cutting off of system access, different criteria applied to other employees of the same level of success, or untrue disciplinary minutes may be important evidence. Preserving digital documents with the original file, date, sender, recipient and context of the record is safer than relying on a cropped screenshot alone.
Can a secret audio recording or camera footage be taken?
Not every secret audio recording is automatically lawful evidence. There are limits of protection of personal data, private life and confidentiality of communication. Although there are judicial assessments in certain exceptional incidents relating to sudden developments in which it was not possible to obtain evidence otherwise, these exceptions do not create a general permission for planned, continuous secret listening. Camera recordings at the workplace may also be subject to the KVKK as regards purpose, scope, notification and proportionality. KVKK, summary of Decision No. 2023/2007 dated 30.11.2023 and KVKK, summary of Decision No. 2023/1548.
Easing proof does not mean removing the burden of proof entirely
In Court of Cassation practice, in disputes that are hard to prove such as psychological harassment, a consistent account and strong indications are important; it cannot be said that in every incident conclusive proof beyond doubt, as in criminal proceedings, will be required. However, a mere allegation, personal opinion or general unhappiness is not sufficient. There must be indications supporting that the specific incidents took place, and the employer must be able to present its objective reasons and counter-evidence. Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2012/9-1925, K.2013/1407.
Acceptance and rejection of mobbing in Court of Cassation decisions
Systematic relocations and the intent to intimidate: the Civil General Assembly
In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) E.2012/9-1925, K.2013/1407, a lawyer who had worked in the same place for a long time was forced to change cities many times in a short period; the employer could not present a sufficient operational reason, and, taking this together with internal correspondence, the court reached the conclusion of psychological harassment. The decision stressed that the conditions of non-pecuniary damages and any pecuniary damage that can be concretely shown must be investigated. It matters that several objective records point to the same intent to intimidate. Decision record.
Termination for cause and severance pay: practice in 2025
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 04.11.2025, E.2025/6819, K.2025/8424, changes of duty, the failure to give the employee work, the transfer of the customer portfolio and the manner in which these were explained were examined together. The first-instance court’s assessment of systematic pressure and of the employee’s termination for cause was upheld on appeal. The decision also contains the distinction that an employee who terminates the contract for cause on their own account cannot receive notice pay. Decision record.
An incident in which mobbing was rejected: the nature of performance pressure
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 29.04.2024, E.2024/3342, K.2024/7399, the court focused on the fact that the claims concerning meeting sales targets, store changes and workload could not be proved to have reached the level of systematic psychological harassment specific to the claimant. This decision shows that an intense work pace or managerial criticism alone will not lead to a finding of mobbing. Decision record.
Even where there is no mobbing, the employer’s duty of protection may be examined separately
In the decision of the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 12.06.2024, E.2024/6860, K.2024/9710, the employer’s duty to provide a healthy working environment and its duty of protection under TBK Article 417 were discussed together with the elements of the psychological harassment allegation. In such incidents, regardless of the existence of mobbing, the breach of the employer’s duty to protect the employee’s personality and health may separately be a matter of legal review. The result of the decision depends on the specific records of the file. Decision record.
The method that can be drawn from the Court of Cassation case law
When the decisions are assessed together, a mere statement that “there is mobbing” or “there is no mobbing” is not sufficient. In every allegation, being targeted, continuity, whether the conduct can be explained by the requirements of the work, the effect on the employee’s health and personality rights, the direct knowledge of witnesses and the consistency of the evidence must be discussed. The decisions concern different incidents; none of them is a rule that attaches an automatic result to every file.
Can an employee terminate the employment contract for cause because of mobbing?
Immediate termination for cause under Labor Law Article 24
The employer’s demeaning words, provocation, intimidation, serious attack on personality rights, failure to apply working conditions and the other characteristics of the incident may bring up the employee’s right of termination for cause under Article 24/II of Labor Law No. 4857. Under which sub-paragraph the conduct falls must be determined separately; using the word “mobbing” does not by itself constitute a statutory ground for termination. The employee must make concrete why the conduct made continuing the employment relationship unreasonable to expect.
The Labor Law Article 26 period and continuing conduct
In immediate termination based on grounds of breach of the rules of morality and good faith, the provisions of Labor Law Article 26 on the six business days from learning and the one year from the act are important. In an allegation of systematic and continuing harassment, it is separately discussed which act took place when, when the employer or the employee learned of it and whether the violation continues. A categorical generalization such as “the period always runs from the date mobbing began” or “no period applies to continuing mobbing” is not correct. A legal review is needed before the specific date of termination. Law No. 4857 Article 26.
Can the employee receive severance and notice pay?
When the employee terminates for cause, severance pay may be claimed if the other conditions are also present. However, an employee who terminates the employment contract immediately does not, as a rule, become entitled to notice pay; the purpose of notice pay and how it operates with regard to the terminating party are different. The employee’s unpaid wages, overtime, unused annual leave or other receivables are protected under their own conditions. Ministry of Labor and Social Security – Labor Law FAQ.
Is it possible to seek redress while the employment relationship continues?
Yes. The employee does not have to resign beforehand in every case in order to ask for mobbing to end, to request preventive measures and, if the conditions are met, to assert claims concerning personality rights or damage. The Civil General Assembly decision also stated that, depending on the circumstances of the incident, the employee has options between ending the employment relationship and continuing it while exercising statutory rights. This choice should be made taking into account the employee’s livelihood, health and conditions of proof.
What compensation and other rights can be claimed because of mobbing?
Non-pecuniary damages
If there is an unlawful attack on personality rights and non-pecuniary harm, appropriate non-pecuniary damages may be claimed under TBK Article 58. The court assesses the gravity and continuity of the acts, the conduct of the parties, the effect of the violation of personality rights and the specific circumstances. Not every mobbing allegation automatically earns non-pecuniary damages of a particular amount; the factual and evidentiary basis of the claim is important.
Pecuniary damage and health expenses
Items such as treatment costs, concrete loss arising from disruption of work, documented additional expenses arising from compulsory reassignment or loss of income may, if the conditions are met, be the subject of pecuniary damages. It must be explained that the damage actually occurred, that it is linked to the ground of liability and that there is an appropriate causal connection. Hypothetical damage or abstract loss of wages is not sufficient on its own.
Severance pay, employee receivables and compensation for unequal treatment
If there is a termination by the employee for cause, severance pay; unpaid wages and leave receivables; and, if there is a violation of the prohibition of discrimination, also discrimination compensation under Article 5 of Law No. 4857 may come up. The conditions of each claim differ. If legal bases compete for the same damage, claims that would result in double redress should be avoided, and the conclusion of the claim should be framed consistently with the legal ground.
Protection of personality rights and putting a stop to the attack
While the employment relationship continues, claims such as preventing an unlawful attack, ending an attack that is still going on or establishing the unlawfulness may come up under the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code on personality rights. The competent court and the conditions of interim legal protection should be examined according to the type of claim and the legal relationship.
Can an employee dismissed because of mobbing request reinstatement?
Termination by the employer and termination by the employee are not the same
If a person exposed to mobbing is later dismissed by the employer, whether the termination was based on a valid reason and the procedure applied may be discussed. In particular, if the employee was dismissed because they made a complaint, allegations of retaliation and discrimination may come up separately. By contrast, the employee’s own termination for cause does not automatically produce the same result as a reinstatement action under the job security provisions.
The basic conditions of job security
For an employee working under an indefinite-term employment contract and meeting the statutory conditions, generally thirty or more employees, at least six months of seniority and the exceptions provided for employer’s representatives are assessed. Depending on the nature of the working conditions, special laws, the calculation of the workplace and the employer association, and certain exceptions may come into play. Law No. 4857 Articles 18–21.
The start of the reinstatement period
An employee requesting reinstatement must apply to a mediator within one month from service of the notice of termination. If no agreement is reached in mediation, a lawsuit may be filed before the labor court within two weeks from the date the final report was drawn up. Making a complaint to ALO 170, CİMER or in-house about mobbing does not stop these periods automatically. Labor Law Article 20; Law No. 7036 Article 3.
Steps after a final reinstatement decision
When the reinstatement decision becomes final and is served on the employee, it is important that the employee apply to the employer within ten business days to be put back to work, and that the employer perform its obligation to reinstate within the statutory period. Compensation for failure to reinstate and receivables for the period of idleness are assessed separately, with their procedure and conditions. Ministry of Labor – Labor Law FAQ.
Distinguishing mobbing and discrimination in an application to TİHEK
The special definition of workplace bullying in Law No. 6701
Law No. 6701 treats “workplace bullying” (işyerinde yıldırma) as intentional conduct aimed at making a person lose interest in, be excluded from or become fed up with their job, linked to the grounds of discrimination listed in the Law. Not every incident of psychological harassment in the sense of general labor law automatically falls within TİHEK’s discrimination review without a ground of discrimination under Law No. 6701. For example, a link with the basis of health status, disability, sex or age must be made concrete. TİHEK – Combating Discrimination.
First a request for correction from the party concerned, and the thirty-day rule
Under Article 17 of Law No. 6701, as a rule, correction of the practice is first requested from the party concerned. If the request is rejected or no reply is given within thirty days, the possibility of applying to TİHEK arises; where there is a possibility of damage that is difficult or impossible to remedy, the Institution may not require this precondition. Applications to TİHEK are free of charge. The special processes in allegations based on Article 5 of Law No. 4857, the Institution’s field of competence and whether the matter is pending before a court are examined separately. TİHEK – Applications.
An application to TİHEK does not replace a compensation action
TİHEK’s administrative discrimination review is not an automatic equivalent of the decision the labor court will give on severance pay, reinstatement or non-pecuniary damages. Different legal routes may exist in the same incident; which right the party can exercise, and within what time, is determined separately. For this reason, making a complaint to a single institution does not mean that all judicial routes have been used.
Psychological harassment with respect to public officials
Civil servants and other public personnel
If the employment relationship of public personnel rests on the status of public official rather than on a private-law employment contract, Law No. 657, special personnel legislation, disciplinary provisions and administrative court rules become separately important. Allegations of transfer of personnel, removal from duty, disciplinary sanctions and the administration’s service fault may be subject to different procedures. The one-month reinstatement application period under Law No. 4857 does not apply directly to every dispute of civil servant status.
CİMER, KDK and administrative applications
CİMER can be a channel for notifying and assessing a matter to a public institution. The Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu, KDK) deals with complaints concerning the functioning of the public administration within its own duties and conditions of application. As regards the judicial time limits that may arise against administrative acts and actions, the Administrative Procedure Law No. 2577 and the special provisions on the specific act are important. It should not be assumed that an application to CİMER stops the filing period in every case.
Does psychological harassment constitute an offense in criminal law?
It cannot be said that there is a single independent offense under the name of mobbing
Workplace mobbing is not regulated in the Turkish Penal Code as a single independent offense covering all conduct. However, if the specific act has the elements of offenses such as insult, threat, sexual harassment, violation of the privacy of private life, violation of the confidentiality of communication and unlawful processing of personal data, a criminal investigation may come up.
A criminal complaint and employee rights are separate
A complaint to the prosecutor’s office or a criminal investigation does not by itself stop the labor law mediation process or the reinstatement periods. Moreover, the evidentiary threshold in the criminal file and the assessment of evidence in the labor court must not be confused with each other. The absence of a criminal case does not automatically show that, in the specific incident, there is no violation of personality rights or breach of the employer’s duty of protection.
Which institution should be applied to for psychological harassment?
| Route of application | What is it important for? | Critical limitation |
|---|---|---|
| The employer’s human resources, ethics line or senior management | Reporting the harassment and protective measures within the workplace | Not a mandatory precondition for every legal route; a written record is important |
| Ministry of Labor and Social Security / ALO 170 | Application, information and the related administrative assessment | Does not replace reinstatement mediation |
| CİMER and the relevant public institution | Complaint and notification to the public administration | Does not stop administrative filing periods in every case |
| TİHEK | Workplace bullying based on a ground of discrimination under Law No. 6701 | A ground of discrimination, a preliminary application and competence conditions are required |
| Ombudsman Institution (Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu) | Complaints concerning the functioning of the public administration | Does not replace the general labor court for private employers |
| Compulsory mediation | Claims such as employee receivables, compensation and reinstatement | Must be completed where it is a condition of suit |
| Labor court | Relevant private-law employee disputes | Jurisdiction, type of claim, time limit and evidence must be checked |
| Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office | Concrete acts containing the elements of an offense | Does not by itself give rise to a right to severance pay or reinstatement |
Mediation, filing periods and limitation
Condition of suit in employee receivables and in compensation based on mobbing
Under Article 3 of Labor Courts Law No. 7036, applying to mediation is a condition of suit in claims for employee or employer receivables and compensation and in reinstatement claims, subject to statutory exceptions. The Ministry of Justice’s publication on specialist mediation in labor law explains that claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages based on mobbing are also assessed within this scope. However, statutory exceptions, such as where the claim is a special compensation arising from a work accident or an occupational disease, must be examined separately. Law No. 7036 Article 3; Ministry of Justice – Specialist Mediation in Labor Law.
Comparison of the time limits
| Right or step | Basic period / assessment | Starting point or risk |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate termination for cause (morality and good faith) | Labor Law Art. 26: six business days from learning, one year from the act; statutory exceptions and the assessment of continuing acts reserved | It must be established which violation was learned of and when |
| Application to a mediator for reinstatement | One month from service of the notice of termination | An internal complaint does not replace it |
| Lawsuit after reinstatement mediation | Two weeks from the date of the final report | Its nature as a preclusive period is important |
| Employee’s application after a final reinstatement decision | Ten business days from service | The intention to actually start work and proof of the notice are important |
| Severance, notice and specified termination compensation | As a rule five years under Labor Law Supplementary Article 3, transitional provisions reserved | The law is determined according to the termination date and the time applicable |
| Non-pecuniary / pecuniary damages linked to mobbing | It cannot be reduced to a single general five-year period. TBK and special provisions are assessed according to the legal ground | Whether the claim is contractual or tortious and the date of the incident are important |
| Preliminary application to TİHEK | As a rule, thirty days without reply to the request for correction, or rejection | The ground of discrimination and the Institution’s field of competence are examined first |
A common mistake about limitation
The statement “all mobbing actions are time-barred in five years” is not a legally accurate generalization. The five-year period for severance and specified termination compensation derives from Supplementary Article 3 of Law No. 4857. In compensation linked to the violation of personality rights, however, the characterization of the harm and the claim as breach of contract or tort and the start of the limitation period must be investigated separately; TBK Articles 72 and 146 and other relevant provisions may come up depending on the nature of the incident. The fact that the employment relationship and the acts ended in a past period may change the provisions applicable in terms of time.
Making an application does not stop the periods by itself
A complaint to ALO 170, a CİMER notification, an e-mail to human resources or an application to law enforcement does not by itself stop all the periods provided for reinstatement or employee receivables. Before filing suit, which step affects which period and the statutory conditions of suspension or interruption must be determined. In particular, the first one-month application period should not be delayed for an employee who has received a notice of termination.
A checklist for employers on preventing and auditing psychological harassment risk
Corporate policy and training
A written policy prohibiting psychological harassment and discrimination at the workplace should be established; it should be explained to employees at hiring and managers should be trained regularly. The training should include not only legal sanctions but also communication that protects employee dignity, performance feedback, allocation of tasks and incident management.
A confidential and impartial reporting system
There should be an application channel independent of the complainant’s superior; in particular, if the person complained about is in human resources or at management level, an impartial alternative should be offered. The security of applications, access authorizations and record retention rules should be set in accordance with the KVKK.
A concrete and auditable investigation process
Which incidents the witness statements relate to, how documents were collected and by what criterion the decision was made should be put in written record. On termination for cause, change of duty, warning or claims for redress, decisions should be made without confusing the types of measures. Oral assessments that cannot be proved later should not be relied on.
Monitoring after the decision and preventing retaliation
The resolution of an application does not by itself mean that the working environment has improved. It should be monitored whether the employee is excluded in the new job, whether the manager complies with the warning and whether workplace relations have broken down again. The employer should avoid measures that would subject the employee to heavier pressure as a result of the complaint and the assessment.
An implementation checklist for employees and employers
A file-preparation check for the employee
- Record the incidents separately by date, time, place and persons.
- Preserve unchanged the clear correspondence and the lawful documents you already have.
- Determine which incident each witness personally witnessed.
- If there is a health effect, keep the medical records safely.
- File the employer’s written response and the measures taken.
- Assess separately the options of continuing the employment relationship, termination for cause or another route.
- Check the reinstatement, mediation and limitation periods against the dates of the incidents.
An incident-review check for the employer
- Record the complaint with its date and content; where possible, give the applicant an acknowledgment of receipt.
- Respect the safety and right of defense of the complainant and the person against whom the allegation is made.
- Compare objective performance, task and personnel records with the relevant period.
- Hear witnesses about incidents they know of directly.
- Limit access, bearing in mind that the evidence contains personal data.
- Determine adequate protective measures; prevent retaliation against the complainant.
- Document the findings and the reasons for the decision; review the result of the implementation.
Conclusion
Psychological harassment at work is not a single argument or a person’s subjective feeling of unease; it requires an assessment as a whole of systematic conduct, the working relationship and the protection of personality rights. The employer’s managerial prerogative does not legitimize the systematic exclusion of a targeted employee or injury to their dignity. By contrast, not every increase in workload, performance warning or change of duty can be regarded as mobbing by itself. For the dispute to be resolved soundly, the chronology of the incidents, strong indications, counter-evidence, the employer’s protective measures and the legal nature of the claim to be asserted must be examined together. The routes of leaving the job, mediation, compensation and reinstatement depend on different conditions and periods; choosing the right legal route in time prevents loss of rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is mobbing at work?
Psychological harassment at work is the whole of demeaning, excluding or intimidating conduct that targets an employee and shows continuity and a systematic character. A single argument does not constitute mobbing in every case; all the characteristics of the specific incident are assessed.
How many months must it last to be regarded as mobbing?
There is no mandatory six-month period valid for every incident. Duration, repetition, intensity and being targeted are assessed together in the specific incident.
Is being criticized loudly by a manager mobbing?
Not every loud criticism by itself is mobbing. If there is continuous humiliation, being targeted and an intent to intimidate, mobbing may come up; a single insult may also constitute another legal violation.
Can colleagues’ exclusion of an employee be mobbing?
Yes. Systematic exclusion, cutting off the flow of information and deliberately obstructing participation in the work may, together with the other elements, constitute mobbing.
Is a heavy workload alone enough?
Not always. It is examined whether the workload is being used in a way specific to the person, intentional and systematic, with the aim of intimidation.
Is a manager who insulted someone once considered to have committed mobbing?
A single insult may not carry the element of continuity of mobbing; however, it is separately important for violation of personality rights, termination for cause or criminal liability.
Is it mandatory to prove mobbing with a health report?
No. A health report may be an important supporting piece of evidence but is not mandatory in every file. Witnesses, correspondence, assignments and other evidence are assessed together.
Can I make a secret audio recording at work?
Not under all conditions. Because of the rules on private life, communication and personal data, an unlawful recording may create a criminal offense or an evidence problem. Specific and exceptional cases of lawfulness must be examined separately.
Is it mandatory to make a written complaint to the employer?
It is not an absolute precondition for every legal claim; however, it may be useful for proving that the incident was reported and which measures were requested. The preliminary-application condition of special procedures such as an application to TİHEK is assessed separately.
Is the employer liable if it ignores the complaint?
Yes, if the conditions are met. Under TBK Article 417 the employer has a duty to protect personality and take the necessary measures. Awareness, the possibility of prevention and concrete measures are important.
Does an employee who resigns because of mobbing receive severance pay?
If the conditions for termination for cause under Labor Law Article 24 and the other conditions are present, the employee may claim severance pay. Using the word mobbing alone is not sufficient; the reason for termination and the evidence are important.
Does an employee who leaves for cause receive notice pay?
As a rule, no. An employee who terminates the employment contract immediately cannot receive notice pay even if they have a cause.
Can non-pecuniary damages be requested because of mobbing?
If the conditions of an unlawful attack on personality rights and non-pecuniary harm are present, they may be requested under TBK Article 58. The amount is not automatic; the specific incident and harm are assessed.
Can pecuniary damages be requested with a mobbing allegation?
Yes, but concrete damage, the ground of liability and the causal connection must be proved. Not every stress or distress automatically constitutes separate pecuniary damage.
If mobbing cannot be proved, can no right be claimed?
No. Insult, discrimination, an unlawful material change or the employer’s breach of its duty to protect health and personality can be examined independently of mobbing.
Can a lawsuit be filed while the employment relationship continues?
If the legal nature of the claim and the conditions of suit are appropriate, claims for the protection of personality rights and the redress of damages may be assessed while the employment contract continues. The same procedure does not apply to every claim.
Can a mobbing complaint be made to ALO 170?
Yes. ALO 170 is one of the information and application channels; however, it does not replace the mediation and labor court periods.
Does a CİMER application stop the reinstatement period?
As a rule, a CİMER application does not by itself stop the one-month reinstatement mediation period in Labor Law Article 20.
Can an application be made to TİHEK with every mobbing allegation?
For TİHEK’s discrimination review there must be a link with the grounds of discrimination listed in Law No. 6701. Mobbing in the sense of general labor law is broader than this special scope.
Is an application to the employer needed before TİHEK?
Under Article 17 of Law No. 6701, as a rule, a request for correction is required; if the request is rejected or no reply is given for thirty days, an application can be made to the Institution. There may be an exception where harm is difficult to remedy.
Can public officials also make a mobbing application?
Yes. However, the administrative application, disciplinary and judicial routes of civil servants and other public personnel vary according to their status; not all the periods in the Labor Law apply automatically.
Within how many days must an application for reinstatement be made?
An application must be made to a mediator within one month from service of the notice of termination, and to the labor court within two weeks from the final report of failure to agree. The job security conditions are also required.
Can an employee who leaves the job because of mobbing request reinstatement?
The employee’s own termination for cause and termination by the employer are different. A reinstatement request is, as a rule, assessed within the framework of termination by the employer and the job security conditions.
If the employer says “there was a performance problem”, is the mobbing allegation rejected?
Not by itself. It is examined whether performance was measured objectively, whether the employee was specifically targeted and whether the defense is supported by concrete records.
Is a manager’s constantly sending an employee to other branches mobbing?
A large number of short-term assignments that cannot be explained by the requirements of the work and that aim to intimidate the employee may form indications of mobbing. The objective operational reason and the contract terms are assessed separately.
Can discrimination compensation also be requested because of an employee’s dismissal?
If there is a concrete violation of the prohibition of discrimination and the statutory conditions are met, a claim may be assessed separately under Article 5 of the Labor Law; mobbing and discrimination are not automatically the same thing.
Is there a separate law under which mobbing is an offense?
There is no single offense under the name of mobbing that covers every act. If the specific conduct has the elements of insult, threat, sexual harassment or other offenses, criminal liability may arise.
Can a witness be sufficient in a mobbing case?
Witness statements based on direct observation, consistent and supported by other facts are important evidence. Whether a general opinion or hearsay account alone is sufficient is assessed according to the specific file.
Is the employer required to take measures only after a complaint?
No. Under TBK Article 417, Law No. 6331 and Circular 2025/3, there are also obligations to develop preventive and protective policies.
Is the limitation period in mobbing cases always five years?
No. Although a five-year period is provided for severance and specified termination compensation, for other compensation based on mobbing the legal ground and the date of the incident must be examined separately.
What can I do if I am dismissed because I made a mobbing complaint?
The notice of termination and its period should be examined immediately; if the job security conditions are present, the one-month mediation period for reinstatement should not be missed. Claims for retaliation, discrimination and compensation may also be assessed.
Did Circular No. 2025/3 repeal the old Circular No. 2011/2?
Yes. Circular No. 2025/3 repealed Circular No. 2011/2 and reorganized the structure of the Board for Combating Psychological Harassment.
Sources
1 — Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Articles 58 and 417 (Ministry of Justice Legislation). Source.
2 — Labor Law No. 4857, in particular Articles 5, 18–26, 22 and Supplementary Article 3 (consolidated text). Source.
3 — Labor Courts Law No. 7036, Article 3 (Ministry of Justice Legislation). Source.
4 — Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, Article 4 (Ministry of Health explanation). Source.
5 — Presidential Circular No. 2025/3, Official Gazette 06.03.2025, No. 32833. Source.
6 — Law No. 6701 on the Human Rights and Equality Institution of Türkiye (Ministry of Family and Social Services). Source.
7 — TİHEK – Discrimination, workplace bullying and conditions of application. Source.
8 — Ministry of Labor and Social Security – Labor Law Frequently Asked Questions. Source.
9 — Ministry of Justice – Specialist Mediation in Labor Law. Source.
10 — KVKK – Image and audio recording at the workplace, summary of Decision No. 2023/2007 dated 30.11.2023. Source.
11 — KVKK – Use of an audio recording in court, summary of Decision No. 2023/1548 dated 07.09.2023. Source.
12 — Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, E.2012/9-1925, K.2013/1407, 2013. Source.
13 — Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2025/6819, K.2025/8424, 04.11.2025. Source.
14 — Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2024/3342, K.2024/7399, 29.04.2024. Source.
15 — Court of Cassation 9th Civil Chamber, E.2024/6860, K.2024/9710, 12.06.2024. Source.