1. Introduction
Technological advancements, global economic dynamics, and evolving social expectations continue to create new types of employment within the labour market. These developments have paved the way for modern work life to accommodate increasingly flexible and diverse models of employment. In turn, this new structure has led to greater participation in the workforce, diversification of employee profiles, and intensified interaction among workplace actors. All these dynamics have made workplace harmony a more critical requirement than ever, both for the continuity of workflow and the sustainability of workplace order.
However, this increase in intensity and interaction may also give rise to negative behaviours in the workplace. These may stem from the inherent stress and pressure of the job, a competitive working environment, or problems reflected from employees' private lives. In some instances, such conduct may even originate from the employer's or managers' own attitudes and policies. Such negative behaviours may range from isolated acts of rudeness that lacking malicious intent, to deliberate and systematic psychological harassment (hereinafter referred to as "mobbing") targeting specific employees or groups of employees. While none of these behaviours should be condoned, the growing tendency in practice to label every adverse workplace interaction as mobbing necessitates a clearer distinction between these concepts. From the perspective of labour law, categorising fundamentally different incidents under the same legal framework risks obscuring the actual nature of the alleged violation, thus complicating the determination of claims and defences in legal proceedings.
This article aims to provide a comparative analysis of the concepts of mobbing and workplace incivility, particularly in light of the case law of the Turkish Court of Cassation. It seeks to highlight the fundamental differences between these two notions and examine the legal consequences that arise from such distinctions under Turkish labour law. Ultimately, the objective is to contribute a more accurate assessment of employers' obligations and employees' rights.
2. Definition, Elements, and Legal Criteria of Mobbing
Although the majority of employees in Türkiye are subject to the Labour Law No. 4857 ("Labour Law"), the concept of mobbing is regulated under the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 ("Turkish Code of Obligations"), which serves as a general law. Article 417 of this Code imposes a duty on employers to take all necessary measures to prevent employees from being exposed to psychological or sexual harassment, and to protect those who have already experienced such treatment from further harm. However, this provision does not offer a detailed definition or specific boundaries of psychological harassment. In our view, this is because of the multifaceted and context-dependent nature of mobbing, which requires judicial discretion and case-specific interpretation. Indeed, although various definitions of mobbing have been proposed in studies such as the Prime Ministry Circular No. 2011/2 on the "Prevention of Psychological Harassment in the Workplace" and the 2011 Report on "Workplace Psychological Harassment and Solution Proposals" prepared by the Parliamentary Commission on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, and under the Law No. 6701 on the Turkish Human Rights and Equality Agency, the essential boundaries of the concept have ultimately been shaped by the case law of the Court of Cassation.
In one of its decisions, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation defined mobbing as a form of psychological terror implemented through repeated attacks in the workplace by employers or other employees. The Court emphasised that perpetrators of mobbing may include superiors, subordinates, or peers.1 It listed various behaviours that may constitute mobbing, such as systematic ill-treatment, threats, humiliation, verbal abuse, and exclusion. In another judgment, the Court enumerated further examples of conduct that may constitute psychological harassment. These included behaviours such as preventing the employee from expressing themselves, interrupting them during speech, publicly reprimanding them in a loud tone, constantly criticising their work, treating them as if they were invisible in the workplace, cutting off communication, disregarding their opinions, spreading baseless rumours, making unpleasant insinuations, withholding meaningful assignments, imposing meaningless tasks, frequently changing their work location, assigning excessively heavy workloads, and threatening physical violence. The Court also highlighted that mobbing is generally intended to push the employee to resign or leave the workplace. This approach to motive is also evident in the decisions of the Court's 9th and 22nd Civil Chambers, both of which frequently underscore the intention to expel the employee from the workplace as a defining characteristic of mobbing. As a result, one recurring theme in these rulings is that what differentiates mobbing from other phenomena like workplace stress, dissatisfaction, burnout, or incivility is the targeted nature, repetition, systematic execution, and specific intent behind the conduct.2
Among the key legal elements emphasized by the Court of Cassation in mobbing-related disputes are the requirements of systematic conduct and continuity over time. Accordingly, an employee alleging mobbing must reasonably prove that the treatment they experienced was repeated and exhibited a systematic pattern. Nevertheless, the Court has adopted a flexible interpretation regarding the burden of proof. It has stated that the plaintiff is not required to present conclusive evidence beyond doubt. Instead, it is sufficient for the employee to put forth facts that create a reasonable suspicion of psychological harassment. Furthermore, the Court has acknowledged the evidentiary difficulties inherent in mobbing claims, given that such conduct typically occurs in private settings between the perpetrator and the victim, often without the presence of witnesses.3 In addressing this challenge, the Court has endorsed the principle of "approximate proof", which is also reflected in the final sentence of Article 5 of the Labour Law. Under this principle, the employee is not required to present conclusive and irrefutable evidence. Rather, it is sufficient for the employee to put forward a convincing factual basis such as consistent patterns of treatment, circumstantial evidence, or indications that raise a strong presumption of harassment. Once such a threshold is met, the burden of proof may then shift to the employer, who must demonstrate that the alleged behaviours did not amount to mobbing. That said, there is no fixed rule in the case law regarding the minimum duration required for conduct to be deemed continuous or systematic. The Parliamentary Commission Report referenced above suggests that the shortest observed duration of mobbing is six months, with the average being fifteen months. Legal scholars have similarly argued that the behaviours constituting mobbing must persist for at least six months. In a relevant case, the Court of Cassation ruled that since the period between the initial date of the alleged mobbing and the employee's resignation was approximately six months, this did not demonstrate a sufficiently extended or systematic pattern.4 Based on this approach, it may be concluded that mobbing requires conduct that persists for at least six months to be legally recognised as such.
It is crucial to underline that not every negative or unpleasant behaviour in the workplace qualifies as mobbing. The Court of Cassation has consistently emphasised this point. For instance, the 9th Civil Chamber ruled that isolated incidents of anger or inappropriate behaviour lacking continuity do not constitute mobbing. Likewise, the Court held that a manager's authoritarian style alone does not automatically amount to psychological harassment.5
3. The Concept of Workplace Incivility
Although the concept of workplace incivility, much like mobbing, does not have a uniform definition in Turkish legislation or case law, it may be described as rude, disrespectful, or insensitive behaviour that lacks systematic repetition, specific targeting, or the intent to push an employee to resign. In other words, such conduct is not directed deliberately at a particular person or group and does not meet the legal thresholds of intent or continuity that define mobbing. While these behaviours may still disrupt workplace harmony and violate personal rights, they differ from mobbing in terms of key legal characteristics such as intent, repetition, systematic execution, and targeting. Moreover, workplace incivility has yet to become a fully settled legal category in Turkish jurisprudence. Nonetheless, even isolated acts of workplace incivility should not be ignored or normalized by employers. Tolerating such behaviours may lead to their repetition or escalation and, in time, transform into conduct that qualifies as mobbing under the law. Therefore, it is crucial for employers not to remain indifferent to these kinds of behaviours.
In one of its rulings, the 22nd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation defined workplace incivility as the absence of courtesy and respect, consisting of subjective, unpleasant, offensive, disturbing, and inappropriate words, attitudes, and actions.6 In our view, the deliberately broad scope of this definition is meant to give the courts discretion in drawing the boundary between incivility and mobbing on a case-by-case basis. These judicial boundaries are particularly important because they directly influence both the legal interests deemed to have been violated and the types of claims that may be pursued as a result. As such, the distinction between mobbing and workplace incivility is not merely theoretical but it has practical consequences in the enforcement of rights and resolution of disputes.
4. Legal Consequences of Mobbing and Workplace Incivility
As previously discussed, under the Turkish Code of Obligations, employers are under a duty of care toward their employees and are therefore required to prevent all forms of psychological and sexual harassment that may arise in the workplace. In addition, pursuant to Article 2 of the Turkish Civil Code, all individuals must act in good faith when exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations. In the earlier periods of Turkish case law on mobbing, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation relied on both the employer's duty of care under the Labour Law No. 4857 and the general principle of good faith to establish employer liability in the absence of a clear statutory provision on psychological harassment.7 Following the enactment of the Turkish Code of Obligations, which explicitly incorporated the concept of psychological harassment into legislation, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers held that mobbing constitutes a breach of the employer's duty of care and obligation to treat employees equally.8 The Court further acknowledged that mobbing interferes with personal rights and therefore may give rise to additional legal remedies. Accordingly, an employee who is subjected to mobbing may terminate their employment contract with just cause under Article 24 of the Labour Law. If the employee can prove that the mobbing was motivated by one of the prohibited grounds listed in Article 5 of the Labour Law, they may also be entitled to compensation for discrimination. However, if the existence of mobbing is established but the discriminatory intent is not, courts will not award such compensation. That said, it is important to recall the consistent position of the Court of Cassation that mobbing constitutes an infringement of personal rights. Therefore, an employee who proves that they were subjected to mobbing may also seek non-pecuniary damages alongside the right to terminate their employment. However, the 9th Civil Chamber has repeatedly stated that such damages will only be awarded where the psychological harassment reaches a certain threshold of severity. In other words, there must be a significant and concrete impact for moral compensation to be granted.9
Another controversial issue, debated both in case law and legal doctrine, concerns entitlement to notice compensation in cases where the employee terminates the employment due to mobbing. In several earlier decisions, the 22nd Civil Chamber ruled that employees who resigned because of mobbing were not acting of their own free will but were effectively forced to do so by the employer.10 11As a result, the Court granted notice compensation to these employees. However, this approach -while notable- has not been adopted as settled jurisprudence and remains an exception. For instance, in a more recent case, the 9th Civil Chamber accepted the employee's claim for moral damages since they retired due to mobbing. However, it rejected the claims for pecuniary and notice compensation, reasoning that it was the employee who had terminated the employment.12 Therefore, under current jurisprudence, there is no settled rule indicating that employees who resign due to mobbing are automatically entitled to notice compensation.
It should also be emphasized that termination is not the only remedy available to employees who experience mobbing. This article focuses primarily on the Court of Cassation's approach, which often involves post-termination litigation. However, mobbing is also closely related to occupational health and safety obligations. Within this context, employers have a duty to prevent not only actual but also potential risks to the employee's psychological (and possibly physical) well-being. In practical terms, this means that an employee has the right to demand that the employer eliminate the source of harassment before resorting to termination. In such cases, the employer should consider disciplinary action against the perpetrator, relocating them within the organization, or even terminating their employment if necessary.
As for workplace incivility, the legal options available to both employees and employers will depend on the specific circumstances of each factual basis. As previously noted, the broad and loosely defined nature of incivility leaves its legal treatment largely open to judicial interpretation. For example, in one decision, the 9th Civil Chamber found that an employer's statement -made in the employee's absence- saying "Let him load if he does, or else he can sit at home." was not sufficient grounds for just cause termination.13 In contrast, in another case, the Court found that the supervisor's remark to the employee, "If you had any honour, you would resign like this man did." did not amount to mobbing, but did justify just cause termination, and even warranted non-pecuniary damages due to the violation of personal rights.14
In summary, the distinction between mobbing and workplace incivility is not merely theoretical but it has direct legal and practical implications for the employment relationship. While mobbing always entitles the employee to terminate the contract with just cause and may give rise to claims for compensation (depending on the nature and consequences of the conduct), workplace incivility does not necessarily justify termination. However, in severe situations, it may even result in non-pecuniary compensation along with termination for just cause if it constitutes an infringement of personal rights. Therefore, in the resolution of disputes, the determining factor is not the abstract classification of the concepts, but rather the accurate identification of the concrete legal consequences they entail within the employment relationship.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, mobbing refers to deliberate and systematic psychological harassment directed at a specific employee, whereas workplace incivility consists of rude, hurtful, and disrespectful behaviours that are general in nature, lacking continuity or specific targeting. There is no doubt that both types of conduct can disrupt workplace peace and negatively affect the well-being of employees. However, they differ significantly in terms of their legal consequences under Turkish labour law.
Mobbing grants employees the right to terminate their employment contracts for just cause and may, depending on the circumstances, give rise to additional claims such as compensation for discrimination or moral (non-pecuniary) damages. Whether mobbing also entitles the employee to notice compensation remains a matter of ongoing legal debate. By contrast, the legal consequences of workplace incivility are usually assessed based on the specific conduct in question. Such behaviours do not automatically justify termination, but if they reach a certain level of severity, especially when personal rights are violated, they may entitle the employee to moral compensation.
Despite these differences, employers have a general duty to take all necessary measures to prevent such conduct in the workplace and to address such issues with seriousness and diligence. This obligation has been consistently reinforced in various rulings by the Court of Cassation, with reference to several legal norms. Moreover, mobbing and workplace incivility should not be viewed solely through the lens of legal liability. Their potential to damage workplace harmony, reduce productivity, and undermine industrial relations also makes them management issues that warrant proactive attention. In this context, although definitions and boundaries have not yet been standardized for assessment in concrete circumstances, it is beyond doubt that mobbing, workplace incivility and related concepts require further examination and elaboration through legislation and judicial precedents. The continued development of legal definitions and judicial reasoning around these concepts is crucial for ensuring the predictability of rights and obligations of the parties in pre-dispute and dispute processes and for maintaining the healthy functioning of labour relations.
Footnotes
1. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2015/2274, Decision No. 2018/1428, 4 October 2018.
2. See, for example, Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2017/16925, Decision No. 2020/10963, 7 October 2020.
3. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2017/3017, Decision No. 2018/99, 24 January 2018.
4. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2016/1427, Decision No. 2021/53, 9 February 2021.
5. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2010/38293, Decision No. 2013/5390, 12 February 2013.
6. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 22nd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2013/11788, Decision No. 2014/14008, 22 May 2014.
7. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2007/9154, Decision No. 2008/13307, 30 May 2008.
8. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, General Assembly of Civil Chambers, Case No. 2012/1925, Decision No. 2013/1407, 25 September 2013.
9. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/8730, Decision No. 2017/1000, 31 January 2017.
10. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 22nd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/11958, Decision No. 2016/15623, 31 May 2016.
11. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 22nd Civil Chamber, Case No. 2014/946, Decision No. 2015/12165, 31 March 2015.
12. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2023/17442, Decision No. 2024/2306, 15 February 2024.
13. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2017/17931, Decision No. 2020/14104, 2 November 2020.
14. Court of Cassation of the Republic of Turkey, 9th Civil Chamber, Case No. 2015/30391, Decision No. 2017/16011, 17 October 2017.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
