Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu, Danıştay ve Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararlarında İşyerinde Yıldırma (mobbing)
Loading...
Date
2021
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Open Access Color
OpenAIRE Downloads
OpenAIRE Views
Abstract
İşyerinde yıldırma (mobbing) gerek özel sektörde gerekse de kamuda çalışma hayatının en önemli sorunlarından birini oluşturmaktadır. Her ne kadar işyerinde yıldırmanın görünüm şekilleri iki sektör arasında farklılık gösterse de amaç aynıdır; çalışanı işyerinde yıldırma eylem ve işlemleriyle yıpratmak, bezdirmek, çalışma hayatından kopararak onu işyerinden uzaklaştırmaktır. Kamu kurumlarında işyerinde yıldırmanın daha çok, idarenin takdir yetkisi kapsamında olan idari işlemlerde sahip olduğu bu takdir yetkisini kamu hizmeti gereklerine ve kamu yararına aykırı bir şekilde kullanarak gerçekleştirildiği görülmektedir. İşyerinde yıldırmaya uğradığını iddia eden kamu görevlisinin başvurabileceği yargı dışı hukuki yollardan biri olan Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumuna başvuru, hukuki denetim ile birlikte hakkaniyet (yerindelik) denetimi yaparak idareye verdiği tavsiye kararları ile etkili bir başvuru yolu olduğu söylenebilir. İşyerinde yıldırma iddiası ile Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumuna yapılan şikayet başvurusu kararları ile İdari Yargıda açılan manevi tazminat davası ve Anayasa Mahkemesine yapılan bireysel başvuru kararları arasında özellikle işyerinde yıldırma sürecinin değerlendirilmesi ve ispatı hususunda farklılıklar göze çarpmaktadır
Mobbing in the workplace is one of the most important problems of working life, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Although the appearance of mobbing in the workplace differs between the two sectors, the purpose is the same; to wear out, harass the employee with acts and processes of intimidation in the workplace, to remove him/her from the workplace by removing him/her from working life. It is seen that mobbing in the workplace in public institutions uses this discretionary power that it has in administrative proceedings, which are within the scope of the discretion of the administration, in a way that is contrary to the requirements of public service and public interest. It can be said that the application to the Ombudsman Institution, which is one of the non-judicial legal remedies that can be applied by a public official who claims to have been bullied in the workplace, is an effective remedy with the advice it gives to the administration by making a fairness (relevance) audit together with the legal audit. There are differences between the decisions of complaint filed to the Ombudsman Institution with the allegation of intimidation in the workplace, the non-pecuniary damage lawsuit filed in the Administrative Court and the decisions of individual application to the Constitutional Court, especially in terms of evaluation and proof of the mobbing process in the workplace.
Mobbing in the workplace is one of the most important problems of working life, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Although the appearance of mobbing in the workplace differs between the two sectors, the purpose is the same; to wear out, harass the employee with acts and processes of intimidation in the workplace, to remove him/her from the workplace by removing him/her from working life. It is seen that mobbing in the workplace in public institutions uses this discretionary power that it has in administrative proceedings, which are within the scope of the discretion of the administration, in a way that is contrary to the requirements of public service and public interest. It can be said that the application to the Ombudsman Institution, which is one of the non-judicial legal remedies that can be applied by a public official who claims to have been bullied in the workplace, is an effective remedy with the advice it gives to the administration by making a fairness (relevance) audit together with the legal audit. There are differences between the decisions of complaint filed to the Ombudsman Institution with the allegation of intimidation in the workplace, the non-pecuniary damage lawsuit filed in the Administrative Court and the decisions of individual application to the Constitutional Court, especially in terms of evaluation and proof of the mobbing process in the workplace.
Description
Keywords
Hukuk, Anayasa Mahkemesi, Danıştay, Kamu Denetçiliği Kurumu, Law, Mahkeme kararları, Constitutional Court, Council of State, Mobbing, Ombudsman Institution, Court decisions, Takdir yetkisi, Mobbing, Yargı kararları, Discretionary power, Judicial decisions, İdari işlemler, Administrative processes
Turkish CoHE Thesis Center URL
Fields of Science
Citation
WoS Q
Scopus Q
Source
Volume
Issue
Start Page
0
End Page
218