Abstract:

Psychological harassment regulation that entered into legislations within the scope of the 417. Article of Code of Obligations abolished a very important drawback existed in employment legislation. Psychological harassment in the workplace can be defined as psychological violence that a person commits to another person in a community. In time, psychological harassment act has been also described as psychological terror, psychological violence, emotional harassment, bullying, intimidation and mobbing. Psychological harassment, which is often at the top of the agenda, is a violence committed against a person by his/her superior, subordinate or equals. It is possible for a lot of acts against personal rights to be claimed as psychological assault. However, for an assault to be evaluated as psychological harassment, assailant’s act has to have the distinctive features of psychological harassment. In situations which are not accepted as psychological harassment, the injured party can take legal actions also against the assailant’s attitudes and behaviours.           If psychological harassment is committed by the employer or his/her employees, there emerge obligations on the employer. These acts can also be considered as tortious acts. In any case, both the employer’s attitude and behaviours towards the employee constitute tortious act, the employer who does not fulfil the obligations bear responsibility. In practice, important case laws for the solution of psychological harassment have been formed against the incidents that take place in working life. Especially, the precedents of the Supreme Court in recent years have made significant contribution to the solution of the problem. In our study, legal consequences of psychological harassment in practice were analysed in accordance with these case laws.

Keywords: