How are the employer's managerial prerogative and the protection of the employee balanced?
The subject matter and limits of the managerial prerogative
The employer may determine how the work is to be performed, in which workflow staff will take part, the organization of the workplace and the reasonable coordination that the work requires. However, this authority is limited by the employment contract, the collective bargaining agreement, workplace practice, the duty of equal treatment, the principle of good faith and the employee's personality rights. That the employer takes a decision on business matters does not place the content of every decision it makes outside judicial review.
A change of duties in the workplace may often arise from a genuine managerial need: grounds such as the closure of a production line, the relocation of a department, a switch to new technology, or leave and staff shortages may be objective. By contrast, stripping an employee of authority merely to make them resign, isolating them without giving any work, or constantly assigning them demeaning tasks may give rise to an allegation of abuse of the managerial prerogative.
Why does TBK Article 417 matter?
Under Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Law No. 6098), the employer must protect and respect the employee's personality and must take the necessary measures to prevent psychological and sexual harassment in the workplace. Even if a change of duties appears technically consistent with the contract, a manner of implementation that offends the employee's dignity, excludes them and turns into systematic pressure may breach this duty. For that reason, the formal compliance of the measure and the lawfulness of its purpose and actual implementation are separate matters.
Which changes of duties does Labor Law Article 22 apply to?
What is a material change in working conditions?
A marked loss of pay, a serious drop in title, a substantial difference in the place of work, a change in working hours that affects the employee's life, the complete removal of the area of responsibility, or a change in the nature of the work that is incompatible with the employee's professional experience may be assessed as a material change in working conditions. Whether a change is material is determined not by an abstract list of titles but by the employment contract, the actual work performed, workplace practice and the consequences of the change.
Written notice and written acceptance within six working days
Under Article 22 of Labor Law No. 4857 (İş Kanunu), a material change must, as a rule, be notified to the employee in writing. A material change that is not accepted by the employee in writing within six working days does not bind the employee. If the employee does not accept it, the employer may resort to termination by stating in writing that the change is based on a valid reason or that there is another valid ground for termination, and by observing the notice period; where the conditions of job security are met, this termination is subject to judicial review.
The effect of the employee's continuing to work in the new position, in terms of express acceptance, silence or actual adoption of the situation, may be debated separately depending on the specific contract and case law. The approach that "because six days have passed, all changes were automatically accepted" is not correct. The employer's duty to obtain written acceptance and the evidentiary value of the parties' subsequent conduct must be assessed separately.
Which documents should establish the record of the change?
The employment contract and its annexes, the job description, the organization chart, the personnel regulation, payroll, the previous duty schedule, the new instruction, the notification service record and, if any, the employee's written acceptance or objection should be brought together. The employer's defense that "similar assignments are made for everyone" should be tested against comparable personnel records.
Which behaviors may indicate systematic mobbing?
Removing authority and work tools without reason
Where projects managed by the employee are given to others without explanation, the employee is systematically dropped from meeting invitations, email or software access is cut off in a way unrelated to the work, and the employee's office is taken away without any new job description being given, an allegation of intimidation may be strengthened when these are assessed as a whole. However, it must also be examined whether there are objective grounds such as data security, an investigative measure or a restructuring of the work.
Assigning duties incompatible with professional qualifications
Where an employee who has long performed work requiring expertise is sent, without explanation, to lower-level work unrelated to their profession, this may become not merely a loss of title but a problem of personality rights and contractual obligations. In its decision dated January 16, 2023, E. 2022/17806, K. 2023/403, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 9. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed a case in which an employee working as a computer operator was continually sent to other duties and assigned to work incompatible with their professional background, and in which this was aimed at steering the employee toward resignation. The decision shows the importance not of a single change of duties but of systematic practices that complement one another.
Wearing down an employee through frequent relocation
What matters is whether the assignment was based on a specific business need, whether the employee was informed in advance, the duration and number of places, the family and health effects, and whether the same practice was applied to employees in a similar position. In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407, the Court assessed a case in which numerous short-term assignments, without objective justification, steered the employee toward resignation or retirement. In that decision the Civil General Assembly set aside the decision by which the lower court had insisted on its earlier ruling (direnme hükmü), and emphasized that the result to be applied depends on the evidence in the relevant case.
Measuring against targets that cannot actually be met
If the performance criteria contradict past practice, target only one employee, keep changing, or are applied under conditions in which they cannot be achieved, an allegation of unfair pressure may arise. By contrast, the existence of a realistic, written and objective performance monitoring process does not by itself constitute mobbing. How the employee's success is assessed in the records and whether the criteria are applied to all personnel should be examined.
Which situations are not mobbing on their own?
Genuine operational restructuring
An objective and reasonable allocation of duties made because of the closure of a department, a contraction in production, a change in the customer portfolio or a security requirement is not mobbing. However, it is important that an employer who relies on an operational ground presents records showing that the decision is genuine and that the implementation does not target the employee.
Lawful performance evaluation
The employer may monitor the quality of the employee's work, point out objective shortcomings and ask for improvement within a reasonable period. A good-faith criticism that upsets the employee does not by itself prove systematic intimidation. In its decision dated April 29, 2024, E. 2024/3342, K. 2024/7399, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation examined allegations of quota pressure, relocation and work outside the job description; it held, however, that it had not been sufficiently shown that these practices reached the level of systematic psychological harassment specific to the claimant.
Temporary and reasonable assignment
An assignment may be made for the urgent needs of the workplace that is time-limited, suited to the employee's professional knowledge, within the limits of the contract and not offensive to the employee's dignity. The allegation that "the new duty was disliked" does not by itself lead to a finding of mobbing without a concrete unlawfulness.
Evaluation matrix for change of duties and mobbing
| Situation | First legal question | Evidence that may change the outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer to another unit with the same title | Is there a material change or an objective need? | Contract, duties, distance and working hours |
| A new manager appointed alongside the existing manager | Was there a loss of authority, and what is the real nature of the work? | Organization chart, management decisions |
| Left idle without being given duties | What is the employer's compelling reason and for how long? | Access records, project list, instructions |
| Constant relocation | Is the aim to wear down the employee, or is there a genuine rotation need? | Chronology, comparative staff movements |
| Lowering of the performance score | Are the criteria objective and consistent? | KPI records, target letters, past scores |
| Different disciplinary action after an objection | Is there retaliation for the complaint? | Date of the complaint, the action and its application to other staff |
This matrix provides initial review questions rather than a definitive legal characterization. A material change and mobbing may exist at the same time, or only one of them may be present.
What do Court of Cassation decisions change in practice?
A decision in favor of mobbing and termination for cause
In its decision dated December 10, 2018, E. 2016/8518, K. 2018/26556, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 22. Hukuk Dairesi) assessed as a material change in working conditions the compulsion of an employee working as an administrative manager at a hotel to take on a clerk's duties at another workplace, together with the change of both place of work and title. In the file, the employee's termination for cause and severance (kıdem tazminatı) stand out. This approach requires investigating not only the name of the duty but how it has actually changed.
Where a mobbing allegation may be rejected
In its decision dated June 12, 2024, E. 2024/6860, K. 2024/9710, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation discussed allegations concerning meetings, duties, performance and foreign-language practice. Tension in the workplace and its effect on health are not the same as the elements of psychological harassment; proof of systematic intimidation and breach of the employer's duty of care for health and protection call for separate legal assessments. The reasoning of local or regional appellate courts at different stages of a decision should not be reported as if it were the final Court of Cassation ruling.
The concrete features of a favorable decision cannot be copied
That mobbing was accepted in one decision as a result of numerous changes of duties does not mean that a single temporary relocation in another file will produce the same result. Material elements such as the nature of the employee's duties, the managerial rationale, comparable personnel and the date of the event must be separated out.
What should an employee do who does not wish to accept a change of duties?
Requesting written notice and preserving records
If the change made to the employee is not in writing, it may be useful to ask for an explanation setting out the reason, scope and start date of the change. The job description, pay, place of work, commuting burden and the actual effect of the new conditions should be recorded. It should be borne in mind that the employee's response period and any conduct amounting to acceptance may later give rise to a dispute.
The legal meaning of written acceptance or objection
The six-working-day period under Labor Law Article 22 matters in proposals for a material change. Since the employer's resort to termination because of the employee's refusal is a separate act, the reinstatement (işe iade) and compensation regime is assessed separately in that case. It is not correct to treat a written refusal and not coming to the workplace at all as the same thing; it should be remembered that conduct that may give rise to an allegation of absenteeism carries legal risk.
The option of termination for cause
If the change not only exceeds the limits of authority but also amounts to serious psychological harassment or a breach of contract, the employee's right to termination for cause under Article 24 of Law No. 4857 may arise. The ground for termination for cause must be explained with concrete acts, dates and evidence. The time limit under Labor Law Article 26 and discussions about continuing violations are assessed separately. The conditions for severance pay (kıdem tazminatı) are different; notice pay (ihbar tazminatı) as a rule does not arise where the employee terminates for cause.
Reinstatement where the employer terminates
An employee whose employment contract is terminated by the employer because they did not accept the change may, if they meet the conditions of job security, consider the reinstatement (işe iade) route under Labor Law Article 20. The one-month time limit for applying to a mediator, running from service of the termination notice, is important. One must not miss the reinstatement time limit on the thought that "I have filed a mobbing application".
How can the employer prevent such disputes?
Keeping organizational decisions reasoned and comparable
The employer should record in writing the concrete need for the change of duties, the persons affected, the new nature of the work, the effect on pay and authority, the effective date and the selection criterion. Such records constitute stronger evidence than later saying "there was no pressure". There should be a clear channel through which the employee can voice an objection, and retaliation must be prevented.
Good faith in performance management
Performance targets should be measurable, suited to conditions the employee can actually reach, and applied consistently to similar personnel. A demeaning tone, humiliation in front of everyone, irrelevant targets and constant accusatory correspondence should be avoided. Under TBK Article 417, investigating the incident and protecting employees' personality are part of the employer's duty of care.
Health and personal data limits
Health data collected during performance interviews, employees' private correspondence and workplace records must be processed with regard to the Personal Data Protection Law (KVKK) and the related obligations. A manager's authority to monitor an employee cannot be regarded as authority to read all private communications or to conduct constant surveillance.
Conclusion
The lawfulness of a change of duties is not determined solely by relying on the employer's organizational authority. The material change rules of Labor Law Article 22, the concrete business need, the employee's status, the actual consequences of the change and the intent to systematically intimidate must be examined together. The same conduct may sometimes be a valid managerial measure, sometimes a material change, and sometimes mobbing and a ground for termination for cause. A sound legal assessment requires that a duty order be examined not alone but together with the conduct before and after it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the employer assign the employee to any duty it wishes?
The employer has a managerial prerogative; however, it is limited by the contract, workplace practice, the material change rules and personality rights.
Is a change of duties mobbing on its own?
No. Whether it is systematic, whether it targets the employee and has an intimidating purpose, and whether there is an objective reason are examined separately.
What do the six working days in Labor Law Article 22 mean?
Following written notification to the employee of a material change in working conditions, the employee's written acceptance within six working days is required; statutory exceptions and the effect of actual conduct are examined in the specific file.
If I did not give written acceptance, does the new duty bind me?
Under the statutory material change regime, as a rule it does not. However, whether the change is material, any later agreement between the parties and actual conduct must be investigated.
Is it mobbing if my authority is removed and I am given no work?
If it is done without an objective reason, systematically and in a demeaning manner, it may strengthen a mobbing allegation. Detailed evidence is needed.
Is failing to meet a performance target evidence of mobbing?
Not on its own. Whether the target is objective, different treatment specific to the employee and demeaning pressure are examined.
If my title was lowered, can I receive severance pay?
A material and unlawful change may constitute a ground for termination for cause; the statutory conditions for severance pay (kıdem tazminatı) are separately required.
Can I file a reinstatement action because the employer changed my duties?
Reinstatement, as a rule, arises on the employer's termination of the employment contract. A change of duties alone is not the same thing as a reinstatement action.
If mobbing cannot be proved, does that mean no other rights can be claimed?
No. A separate violation may exist in terms of a material change, breach of contract, equal treatment or the employer's duty of care for health and protection.
I signed the change-of-duties notice; am I necessarily deemed to have accepted?
The content of the document matters: signing to acknowledge receipt is not the same as expressly accepting the change. The wording of the document and actual conduct must be examined together.
Sources and legal bases
- Labor Law No. 4857, Articles 17–22 and 24 — material change in working conditions, termination.
- Ministry of Labor and Social Security, Labor Law questions and answers — change of duties and written acceptance.
- Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 417 — protection of the employee's personality.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 16, 2023, E. 2022/17806, K. 2023/403 — frequent changes and intent to intimidate.
- 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, December 10, 2018, E. 2016/8518, K. 2018/26556 — change of title and place of work.
- 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 29, 2024, E. 2024/3342, K. 2024/7399 — distinguishing objective performance management from mobbing allegations.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2012/9-1925, K. 2013/1407 — systematic assignment and intimidation; the decision date is 2013.