← Court of Cassation Decisions

Can Repeated Workplace Reassignments Amount to Bullying?

A change in work location does not, on its own, amount to workplace bullying, often referred to in Turkey as mobbing. The assessment may change where repeated assignments lack an objective basis and form part of conduct intended to wear an employee down.

Background

The employee had worked as a lawyer at the same workplace for approximately 14 years. The employee was then sent on short assignments to various locations, including Adana, Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep and Mardin. The file recorded 30 assignments over approximately nine months. The employer did not demonstrate a concrete operational need for that frequency, and its assertion that comparable employees were treated similarly was not proved. Internal correspondence was also considered alongside the other evidence.

The Court of Cassation’s decision

The General Assembly of Civil Chambers considered the pattern of conduct as a whole. The repeated assignments after many years at one location, the lack of objective reasons and the other evidence supported a finding that the conduct was intended to intimidate and wear down the employee. It found psychological harassment and held that an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages was required, reversing the lower court’s judgment maintaining its earlier position.

Is every reassignment workplace bullying?

No. Employers may assign staff to different locations for organisational or operational reasons. Frequency, duration, justification, differences in treatment between employees and the overall course of events must be assessed together. This decision does not mean that a change of work location alone establishes bullying.

What this means for employers

The reasons for repeated reassignments over a short period should be clear and capable of being documented. Management decisions are assessed in light of good faith and the employer’s duty of care. A bullying claim may turn on the cumulative pattern rather than any single decision.

Decision details

Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers

Case No.: 2012/9-1925

Decision No.: 2013/1407

Decision date: 25 September 2013

Read the Turkish case commentary

This article provides general information. Each case must be assessed in light of its own circumstances.

Return to Court of Cassation Decisions →