The banker, who was fired from the bank where he worked as a team leader for 13 years, went to the Labor Court.
Stating that they were exposed to a very harsh, offensive, threatening and humiliating management approach by the second manager assigned to the unit where he worked, the plaintiff claimed that after he conveyed the difficulties experienced to his superior manager, the manager took a personal stand against him and applied a policy of pressure and intimidation.
He stated that he intervened in break times and did not allow him to take leave while other employees were taking administrative leave. He noted that in the meeting where all team leaders were present, the manager used expressions such as "dishonorable" and "without character" when addressing him. He claimed that he changed his seat, made him sit directly opposite him in order to observe him closely and make him feel more pressure, and that he tried to isolate him.
The plaintiff explained that he was dismissed by the defendant bank while he was waiting for a positive solution to his justified complaint; Claiming that he had significant and serious health problems as a result of the systematic and institutional pressure, intimidation, mobbing (psychological harassment) and discrimination applied by the bank, and that he was treated with a diagnosis of depression and hypertension, he requested a decision to collect non-pecuniary compensation, financial compensation and discrimination compensation from the defendant.
The defendant bank's lawyer stated that the plaintiff's employment contract was terminated, with all legal rights paid, for reasons arising from the requirements of the workplace and the job. He requested the rejection of the case, arguing that as a result of the evaluation made by the Disciplinary Board, it was concluded that no special intimidation or mobbing was applied to the plaintiff.
"DO NOT GO TO THE TOILET FREQUENTLY, DO NOT GET DIARRHEA"
The Labor Court pointed out that in the e-mail sent by the relevant bank branch manager to the employees, he gave offensive instructions not to take longer breaks, not to go to the toilet frequently, and not even to have diarrhea.
Court; It adjudicated the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages on the grounds that he was subjected to psychological harassment.
In the decision, it was stated that the acts of psychological harassment started when the person with whom the plaintiff had problems became the manager of the branch, and added: "The defendant did not present any evidence that the plaintiff's performance was low, and the witnesses heard stated that the plaintiff's performance was good."
It was understood from the witness statements that the communication problem, which was the reason for the termination of the plaintiff's employment contract, was caused by the other team leaders cutting off communication with the plaintiff as a result of psychological harassment by the manager.
It is established that there is a problem even if one goes to the toilet twice in a row during a break, an e-mail was sent to the plaintiff stating that diarrhea would not occur, a warning message was sent to the plaintiff about the break, and on the same day, a few hours after this message, e-mails were sent with hurtful words and accusing those who went on break.
It was understood from the witness statements and e-mails that the plaintiff was placed under detention by changing his location, and that the plaintiff's location was changed and his break times were controlled.
It is also established that there was an offensive and humiliating attitude towards the plaintiff, his break hours were monitored, the defendant's witnesses confirmed that the plaintiff worked while he was on annual leave and what was said at the meeting, and although the reason for downsizing was cited as the reason for termination, no one other than the plaintiff was dismissed for the same reason.
When evaluated together with the submission of doctor's reports showing that the plaintiff's health was negatively affected by this entire process, acts of psychological harassment that resulted in the plaintiff being offended, excluded, isolated, and being punished by not responding to her complaints for a long time and by terminating her employment contract have been proven.
"It was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that it was accepted that the plaintiff was entitled to non-pecuniary compensation, but the conditions for material compensation and discrimination compensation were not met."
