A mobbing policy for a hotel: what to write, who receives complaints and how a case is handled

A mobbing policy is a short written rule that defines psychological harassment in plain words, names who receives a complaint when the line manager is the problem, and sets out how a case is investigated, recorded and closed. In Türkiye, the employer's duty to protect employees rests on statute: the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu) Article 417 covers the employer's duty to protect personality, and the Labor Law (İş Kanunu) Article 24 gives an employee the right to terminate for just cause, including harassment. A Prime Ministry Circular from 2011 is often cited as the earlier framework for prevention; treat it as background and confirm your own case with a legal adviser.

A commis hands in a resignation that says only "I am leaving because of the kitchen", and the hotel discovers it has no file, no route and no record of the three months that came before. The policy exists to make that sentence impossible to write without an answer. After reading this, you will be able to write the one page, name the second and third door for complaints, and run a case from acknowledgement to closure.

What counts as mobbing in a hotel, and what does not?#

Mobbing is repeated, deliberate mistreatment of one person over time, not a single hard conversation during service. The test is pattern and direction, not volume.

The reference text in Türkiye is Prime Ministry Circular 2011/2 on preventing psychological harassment at workplaces (Resmî Gazete, 19 March 2011) (opens in a new tab). It describes psychological harassment as deliberately and systematically, over a certain period, humiliating, belittling, excluding or mistreating an employee, damaging their personality and dignity, or intimidating them. Use that definition, then translate it into hotel language.

A department head can apply four checks. Does the behaviour repeat? Is it aimed at the person rather than at the work? Does it remove the means to do the job, such as information, tools or access? And is there a power gap the target cannot close? One sharp exchange at 21:00 is not mobbing. A lawful instruction is not mobbing. A written performance plan with targets and dates is not mobbing, and neither is a rota the employee dislikes or a disciplinary process run properly.

The circular covers public bodies and private-sector workplaces, and it binds everyone. It says all employees will refrain from any act or behaviour that may count as psychological harassment, so peers and the owner are inside the rule too. Separate the two directions early: supervisor to staff, and staff to staff. The same policy covers both, but the evidence and the protective measures differ.

A guest mistreating an employee is a different file with a different route. Do not fold it into the mobbing procedure, or the numbers become meaningless; see when a guest harasses a staff member for that route.

Where does mobbing actually show up in a hotel?#

It shows up in the tools a hotel already uses: the rota, the section plan, the supply cupboard, the group chat and the appraisal. That is why it is hard to see from the office.

For example, in a kitchen: the chef stops speaking to one commis, hands the prep list to everyone else, and comments on the same person's speed loudly enough for the pass to hear. For example, in housekeeping: the last floors every day, the trolley key withheld, breaks arranged so one person is always alone, and a room count that makes the standard unreachable. For example, at the front desk: permanent nights presented as a staffing need, a shift swap refused without a reason, and one person's mistake repeated in the department group chat. For example, in appraisal season: a task set with no time, no access and no briefing, then used as evidence of incompetence.

The pattern is usually visible in data the hotel already holds: rota history, sick-leave days, room counts per shift, and resignations inside the first six months in one department. Group chats and radios are working tools and evidence at the same time. Say in the policy that they are covered, and keep the messages when a case opens; the same logic applies to what staff post about colleagues, which a staff social media policy should already address.

What should a hotel's workplace bullying policy actually say?#

One page, in the languages your staff read, with a definition, a named route, timelines in working days and a review date. Anything longer is not read on the shift.

Write the definition in plain words first, then three hotel examples from your own departments, because staff recognize the example before the definition. State the employer's responsibility for prevention, as the circular does, and say the rule binds managers, peers and the owner. Name the route: who receives a complaint, who decides, and the rule that no complaint goes to the person it is about.

Set the timelines in working days: acknowledgement, first interview, written outcome. Choose numbers your hotel can keep in August, not numbers that look good in a binder. Add a no-retaliation clause with its own consequence, and say what happens when a complaint is upheld and when it is made in bad faith. Say how records are kept, who may read them, and that the retention period is set with your adviser. Make the policy part of the handbook and the signature page, as covered in what a hotel employee handbook should include, so it is not a document that lives only in a folder.

Who receives a complaint, and how do you keep it away from the accused?#

The receiver is chosen by the complaint, not by the org chart. The policy must name a second and third door for the cases where the first door is the problem.

The default door is HR or a named contact. The second door is a person senior to the accused who is not in the same reporting line. The third is the owner or an outside adviser. Write the alternates into the policy by role, not by name, so the route survives a resignation.

For a small hotel with no HR, name two people: the owner, and a person the employee chooses to accompany them. The accused is never one of the two. Accept a verbal complaint and write it down in the complainant's words, then read it back; a written-only rule quietly excludes staff who do not write easily. For a team with several nationalities, say which languages a complaint may be made in and who interprets. A colleague from the same department is a poor interpreter.

Record anonymous reports and act on what can be checked, such as a rota pattern or messages, but tell staff honestly that anonymity limits what can be investigated. State what happens when the complaint is about the owner: an outside adviser receives it and keeps the written outcome.

How is a case handled, step by step?#

Acknowledge in writing, protect the complainant the same day, interview separately, decide in writing, and follow up after the file closes. The order matters more than the speed.

Acknowledge in writing within the policy's stated working days, and say who is handling it and when the person will hear next. Take protective measures before the first interview: separate shifts, no shared staff accommodation, no direct reporting line to the accused during the review, and no change to the complainant's pay or section.

Interview the complainant, then witnesses, then the accused, each alone. Read notes back and have them signed or acknowledged. Collect what already exists: messages, rota history, task lists, training records, guest comments, and the dates of earlier verbal complaints.

Write a finding that separates what was alleged, what was established and on what evidence. A finding of "no case" is a real outcome and must also be written. Then choose the response: no case, informal resolution with a written note, or the disciplinary process with a defense request, which has its own rules; see staff warnings and defense requests that hold. Give the written outcome to both sides and name the person who hears an appeal, someone who took no part in the decision. Follow up at thirty and ninety days on the complainant's shifts, sick leave and whether the behaviour stopped.

What goes in the file, and who is allowed to read it?#

One file per case, kept outside the personnel file, with a named reader list. The circular asks for privacy protected as far as possible, which is an honest limit rather than a promise of secrecy.

The contents: the complaint as written, the acknowledgement, dated interview notes, the evidence list, the finding, the decision, the appeal and the closure note. Keep it separate from the personnel file so that a future manager reading the file for a promotion does not read the complaint. Name the readers: the handler, the decision maker, the appeal reviewer and the owner. Everyone else asks the handler.

Treat health details, family details and anything about a person's private life as data to leave out unless the case cannot be understood without it. Set the retention period with your accountant or legal adviser and write the period into the policy; do not guess a number. Give both parties a short written summary of the outcome, not the full file; the full file is not a document to circulate.

How do you train line managers and keep the policy alive?#

Train the first hour, not the law. A chef or head housekeeper needs a script for the moment a complaint reaches them, and a clear list of what they must not do.

The first-hour script: listen, write the date and the words used, do not judge, do not promise secrecy, tell the person who will contact them and when. The do-not list for line managers: no mediation alone, no confrontation before protective measures, no advice to "sort it out between you", no informal transfer as a solution.

Put the route into new-manager onboarding and into the seasonal intake briefing, so it is taught before the first busy week rather than after the first resignation. Review the policy after any upheld case, after a resignation that names a manager, and at the start of every season. Track four things only: reports received, days to acknowledgement, days to closure, and repeat departments. These are process measures, not surveillance of people. Reissue the one page each year with the review date changed, and keep the signed versions.

What to do next#

Write the one page this week, name the second and third door, and test the route with a case you already remember: ask who would have received it, what would have been written down, and who would have decided. If any of the three answers is the person the complaint was about, the policy is not finished.