325 / 522
Both the decisions of the 9
th
Civil Chamber
4
and the General
Assembly firstly state general explanations and principles concerning
mobbing. The Chamber defines the concept of mobbing by referring to
the Federal Labor Court of Germany as
systematic hostility, willfully
causing difficulties, ill-treatment among the employees or by superiors,
especially the employer
. On the other hand, the General Assembly of
Civil Chambers defines the concept of mobbing by referring to the
doctrine as
all types of ill-treatment, threats, and violence applied and
repeated systematically by the other employees to an employee
. In this
respect, in order for treatment to be considered as mobbing,
an employ-
ee should have been targeted, and the treatment should have been
applied systematically and repeatedly for a certain period of time
.
While applying the principles to the case at hand, both the 9
th
Civil
Chamber and the General Assembly of Civil Chambers require the
employer to prove two issues. Accordingly, first of all, the employer
shall prove that the assignment in question has a general application
and that other employees have been subjected to the same treatment;
and, secondly, it satisfies a concrete necessity. As a result, the General
Assembly of Civil Chambers ruled that the practices against the
lawyer, as claimed, constitutes mobbing, and the employer acted with
the intent to cause the employee’s retirement or demotion and, there-
fore, reversed the judgment of the district court.
In addition, the 22
nd
Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation states
another principle in its decision dated 27.12.2013
5
that
unjust treat-
ment towards personal right is sufficient for mobbing, and substantial
violation of the relevant right is not required
.
With respect to these decisions, in order for a practice to be con-
sidered as mobbing, the Court of Cassations requires that the employ-
ee was targeted, the treatment was repeated systematically, and consti-
tutes an unjust practice to the personal rights of the employee.
LABOR LAW
309
4
The decision of the 9
th
Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 28.02.2012, numbered E.
2009/30916, K. 2012/6093.
5
The decision of the 22
nd
Civil Chamber of Court of Cassation dated 27.12.2013, numbered E.
2013/693, K. 2013/30811.