Workplace mobbing has become one of the most actively litigated areas of Turkish labor and employment law in recent years. Defined as a pattern of systematic psychological pressure, humiliation, or exclusionary behavior directed at an employee over a sustained period, mobbing in the workplace causes harm not only to the individual worker’s professional standing but also to their physical health, psychological integrity, and personal dignity. Turkish law addresses this phenomenon through a combination of legislative provisions, regulatory circulars, and a substantial body of Court of Cassation case law that has progressively refined the standards for proving the existence of mobbing and assessing the remedies available to affected employees.
Unlike some European jurisdictions, Turkish law does not contain a standalone statute specifically dedicated to workplace mobbing. Instead, the legal framework is built upon several overlapping provisions that together establish the employer’s duty of care, the employee’s right to a harassment-free work environment, and the consequences of a breach of these obligations. The primary normative pillar is Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, supplemented by Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Labor Law No. 4857. In March 2025, the Presidential Circular No. 2025/3 updated and replaced the earlier 2011 anti-mobbing circular, reaffirming the state’s commitment to combating workplace psychological harassment both in the public sector and beyond.
The Legal Definition and Constituent Elements of Mobbing
Turkish law does not offer a statutory definition of mobbing, but the Court of Cassation and the Ministry of Labor and Social Security have developed a working definition through the accumulation of administrative guidance and judicial decisions. Mobbing is understood as a pattern of behavior that is directed systematically at an employee, that targets the employee’s dignity, personality, values, or professional reputation, that is repeated over a certain period of time, and that is intended either to drive the employee out of the workplace or to undermine their position within the organization.
Several essential criteria must be present for a court to qualify conduct as mobbing. The behavior must not be isolated or accidental. A single incident of harsh criticism, a one-time conflict between colleagues, or a single instance of unfair treatment does not by itself constitute mobbing under Turkish law. There must be a pattern of repetition and a discernible intent to harm, intimidate, or destabilize the targeted employee. The conduct must also target the employee’s personal attributes rather than being directed legitimately at their professional performance. Courts distinguish between lawful managerial authority, including the employer’s right to assign duties, reorganize responsibilities, or evaluate performance critically, and conduct that crosses the line into systematic harassment of the individual.
Mobbing may take many forms in practice. Common examples recognized in Turkish case law include persistent humiliation and demeaning language, the arbitrary removal of meaningful duties or the assignment of meaningless or degrading tasks, deliberate exclusion from team communications and workplace social activities, unwarranted negative performance evaluations designed to create a paper record for termination, and the imposition of unjustified disciplinary measures intended to intimidate rather than correct. The Court of Cassation has also recognized mobbing in situations where an employee is repeatedly subjected to offensive physical remarks, ethnic or gender-based taunts, or persistent unwanted personal intrusions.
The Employer’s Duty of Care Under Article 417
The central statutory provision governing workplace mobbing in Turkish law is Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which imposes a broad duty of care on the employer regarding the personal dignity and health of each employee.
Article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations: The employer is obliged to protect and respect the personality of the employee in the employment relationship. The employer must take the measures necessary in the workplace to protect the health and life of the employee and to prevent psychological harassment. The employer is obligated to pay compensation for any damage caused to the employee’s life, physical integrity, or personal rights as a result of the employer’s conduct in violation of this provision or of other applicable legal obligations.
This article operates in conjunction with Article 58 of the same code, which provides the general basis for claiming compensation for violations of personal rights. When the employer’s failure to prevent or remedy mobbing causes harm to the employee’s psychological or physical integrity, Article 58 allows the affected employee to pursue a moral damages claim alongside any other available remedies. The Court of Cassation treats Articles 417 and 58 as operating sequentially within the same legal process: the breach of the employer’s duty of care under Article 417 gives rise to a violation of personal rights, and that violation in turn activates the compensation mechanism under Article 58.
The Right to Terminate the Employment Contract for Just Cause
One of the most significant practical consequences of workplace mobbing under Turkish labor law is the affected employee’s right to terminate the employment contract for just cause under Article 24, paragraph 2 of the Labor Law No. 4857. This provision allows an employee to immediately dissolve the employment relationship when the employer’s conduct is contrary to the rules of good faith and morality, or when the employee is subjected to harassment, threats, or conduct that violates their honor and dignity.
Article 24, paragraph 2(b) and (d) of the Labor Law No. 4857: An employee may terminate the employment contract immediately if the employer or a member of the employer’s household harasses or molests the employee, or if the employer acts in a manner that violates the rules of ethics and good faith.
When the employee terminates the contract on this basis and successfully establishes the existence of mobbing, they become entitled to severance pay, calculated on the basis of their length of service and gross monthly wage. This is a critical distinction from an ordinary resignation, which forfeits the employee’s right to severance pay. An employee who resigns without invoking just cause loses the statutory severance entitlement regardless of the underlying circumstances. For this reason, the framing of the termination is legally decisive, and affected employees are strongly advised to declare the reason for termination explicitly and in writing before or at the time of leaving the workplace.
The Court of Cassation has also developed the concept of constructive dismissal, which applies in mobbing cases where the employee formally appears to resign voluntarily but has been driven to that decision by the employer’s systematic pressure. In such cases, the court looks beyond the formal act of resignation and treats the employer as the party that effectively terminated the employment relationship. The outcome is that the employee becomes entitled not only to severance pay but also to notice pay, on the theory that it was the employer’s conduct, not the employee’s free will, that ended the contract.
Standard of Proof and Available Evidence
One of the most important features of Turkish mobbing jurisprudence is the relaxed standard of proof applied by the courts. The Court of Cassation has consistently held that an employee alleging mobbing is not required to prove the existence of the conduct to an absolute certainty. Instead, the standard of approximate proof applies: the employee must present circumstances and evidence that raise a credible presumption that mobbing has occurred, whereupon the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the alleged conduct did not take place or that it was lawful and justified.
This approach reflects judicial recognition of the inherent difficulty of documenting a pattern of behavior that often occurs informally, without written records, and that the perpetrator has an interest in concealing. Witness statements from current or former colleagues, electronic communications such as emails and messaging application records, medical and psychological treatment records demonstrating the employee’s deteriorating health, documented changes in the employee’s job description or organizational position without legitimate business justification, and patterns in disciplinary records or performance evaluations are among the most commonly accepted categories of evidence. Workplace security camera footage and official complaint records filed with the employer’s human resources department may also be material.
The Court of Cassation further holds that mobbing, by its nature as a continuous pattern of behavior, is not subject to the ordinary six-day limitation period applicable to terminations based on just cause. An employee who has been subjected to sustained mobbing over months or years is not required to terminate the contract within six business days of any specific incident because the relevant trigger is the accumulated pattern of conduct, not any single event within it.
Mandatory Mediation and the Litigation Process
Since the entry into force of Law No. 7036 on Labor Courts, all claims arising from the employment relationship — including claims for severance pay, wage arrears, moral damages, and related compensation arising from mobbing — are subject to mandatory mediation before a lawsuit may be filed. A party who attempts to open a court proceeding without first completing the mediation process will have the case dismissed on procedural grounds. If the mediation session does not result in a settlement, the mediator issues a final record confirming the failure to reach an agreement, and this record must be attached to the court petition when the lawsuit is initiated.
The competent court for mobbing-related claims is the Labor Court, known as the İş Mahkemesi. In localities that do not have a dedicated Labor Court, the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction exercises jurisdiction in labor matters. The territorially competent court is either the court at the location of the employer’s place of business or the court at the place where the work was habitually performed. The employee may also file the case at the court of their own domicile, providing a degree of flexibility that is intended to benefit the economically weaker party in the dispute.
Compensation and Remedies
Employees who successfully establish a mobbing claim before a Turkish labor court may be entitled to several categories of compensation. Severance pay and notice pay constitute the core financial claims where the employment relationship has been terminated. In addition, the employee may claim moral damages under Articles 417 and 58 of the Turkish Code of Obligations for the harm caused to their psychological integrity, personal dignity, and quality of life. The court assesses the amount of moral damages on a discretionary basis, taking into account the duration and intensity of the harassment, the nature of the specific acts involved, the severity of the psychological harm suffered by the employee as documented by medical evidence, and the financial capacity of the employer.
An employee does not need to have terminated the employment relationship in order to pursue a moral damages claim. Turkish law permits a current employee who is still working to bring a compensation action based on ongoing mobbing without being required to resign first. In practice, however, continued employment becomes difficult to sustain in a workplace where systematic harassment is occurring, and most claims are filed in conjunction with or following a termination.
Where the mobbing conduct also constitutes a criminal offense under the Turkish Penal Code — such as insult under Article 125, threat under Article 106, sexual harassment under Article 105, or invasion of privacy — the employee may additionally file a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s office, independent of and alongside the civil and labor proceedings. The two proceedings are legally separate, and the outcome of one does not automatically determine the outcome of the other.
Workplace Harassment Lawyer in Istanbul – Attorney Ozan Soylu
Attorney Ozan Soylu is a practicing lawyer based in Istanbul, representing employees and employers in labor law disputes including workplace mobbing and psychological harassment claims. His practice covers the preparation and filing of mobbing-related lawsuits, representation in mandatory mediation proceedings, and the pursuit of severance, notice pay, and moral compensation claims before Istanbul’s labor courts.
For all legal matters concerning Turkish law, you can reach out to Attorney Ozan Soylu. Legal consultancy and representation services are provided with a dedicated approach for foreign nationals. To submit your questions, contact us.
Leave a Comment