Newsletters
A labor court in Türkiye has ordered a bank to pay non-pecuniary damages to a team leader after finding that a manager emailed staff not to take long breaks, visit the toilet often or “get diarrhea”.
The court ruled that the employee was subjected to psychological harassment, known as mobbing, and the decision was upheld by a regional appeals court and then unanimously by the Court of Cassation.
The labor court said a branch manager sent the email, and that the plaintiff received a warning about breaks. Hours later the same day, accusatory emails went to employees who took breaks.
Witness statements and emails showed the plaintiff was kept under “close watch” and that break times were tracked, the court added.
The court said the bank presented no evidence of poor performance, while witnesses described the plaintiff’s performance as good.
It found that the communication problem cited as grounds for dismissal resulted from other team leaders cutting contact with the plaintiff after the manager’s harassment.
The court also noted that no one else was dismissed on the downsizing grounds the bank cited.
Taking medical reports into account, the court concluded that the plaintiff endured “prolonged humiliation, exclusion and isolation” and was then punished with a dismissal.
It ruled that the conditions for pecuniary damages and discrimination compensation were not met.
The plaintiff worked as a team leader at the bank for 13 years before being dismissed. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff said the second manager assigned to the unit used a harsh, humiliating and threatening management style, and that the pressure became personal after a complaint was passed to a higher executive.
The plaintiff said the manager interfered with break times and refused administrative leave that other employees could take.
The plaintiff also said the manager called the plaintiff “dishonorable” and “characterless” at a meeting of all team leaders, and had the plaintiff’s seat moved directly opposite the manager’s to monitor the plaintiff more closely.
The plaintiff said the bank dismissed the plaintiff while a resolution to the complaint was still awaited.
The plaintiff reported being treated for depression and hypertension and sought non-pecuniary damages, pecuniary damages and discrimination compensation.
The bank’s lawyer said the contract was terminated for reasons arising from the workplace and the requirements of the job, and that all legal entitlements were paid.
The lawyer said the bank’s disciplinary board found no targeted pressure or mobbing and asked the court to dismiss the case.
The bank appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal, which rejected the appeal and said the labor court’s assessment was sound.
The 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation then upheld the decision unanimously.
Set as preferred source
Set as preferred source
2 min read
