A bank employee, who was fired from the bank where he worked as a team leader for 13 years, then 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 the manager used expressions such as "dishonorable" and "without character" when addressing him at the meeting where all team leaders were present. 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.
DISCIPLINARY BOARD SAID 'NO MOBBING'
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, "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 due to the fact that the other team leaders stopped communicating with the plaintiff as a result of the psychological harassment applied by the manager. There was a problem even when going to the toilet twice in a row during the break, and an e-mail was sent stating that there would be no diarrhea." "It is clear from the witness statements and e-mails that a warning message was sent to the plaintiff about the break, and on the same day, a few hours after this message, offending and accusing e-mails were sent to those who went on break.
RIGHT TO COMPENSATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED
In the decision, it was underlined that the plaintiff was treated in an offensive and humiliating manner and said: "It is also established that the break hours were monitored, that the defendant's witnesses confirmed that the plaintiff worked while he was on annual leave and what was said at the meeting, and that although the downsizing reason was shown as the reason for termination, no one was dismissed for the same reason other than the plaintiff. When evaluated together with the submission of doctor's reports indicating that the plaintiff's health was negatively affected by this entire process, the plaintiff was subjected to long-term humiliation, exclusion, isolation and complaints." "The acts of psychological harassment, which resulted in no response for a long time and then being punished by terminating the employment contract, were proven. It was accepted that the plaintiff was entitled to non-pecuniary compensation, and it was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the conditions for material compensation and discrimination compensation were not met."
The defendant bank appealed the decision. The Regional Court of Justice (BAM) decided to reject the appeal application on the grounds that the factual and legal assessment of the Labor Court was appropriate. When the defendant appealed the decision, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals stepped in. The chamber unanimously approved the decision.
