Or about the reasons for mobbing at work
Every employee has heard of mobbing at some point in their life – sometimes as a joke, sometimes in the context of negative behavior by an employer or another employee. However, the legal definition of mobbing is not the same as the common understanding.
What is mobbing in legal terms?
According to the Labor Code, mobbing must be defined as an act or behavior directed at or directed against an employee that involves persistent and prolonged harassment or intimidation. The effect of these acts or behaviors must be to cause the employee to underestimate their professional abilities, to cause or have the purpose of humiliating or ridiculing the employee, isolating them, or eliminating them from the team.
Translating the above into more practical terms, the actions and behaviors themselves constitute harassment or intimidation. Furthermore, mobbing will only occur when such behavior persists and is prolonged. This is the biggest difference between the common understanding of mobbing and the code's definition. A single, even the most extreme, vulgar behavior or act of violence will not constitute mobbing under the Labor Code. There are, of course, other legal avenues that may allow for the pursuit of liability from the perpetrator of such behavior – in particular, institutions guaranteeing the protection of personal rights, or criminal provisions.
It's worth emphasizing that there are a number of actions that can be interpreted as mobbing by an employee, even though they aren't. For example, conducting routine, routine checks on an employee can be considered a source of significant stress for one person, while for another, these actions may seem routine and not intended to harass the employee, but rather to verify their work. These misunderstandings stem from the fact that each person is different and reacts differently to their environment and the specific actions of individual employees. Therefore, each action is assessed objectively—that is, whether, if each person were subjected to mobbing, the specific behavior would be classified as mobbing. As a rule, individual employee characteristics (such as hypersensitivity) are completely ignored. On the other hand, a specific individual's insensitivity to the employer's behavior is also completely ignored.
Who is a mobber?
The perpetrator of mobbing can be not only the employer, but also anyone under their control – members of management boards/governing bodies, direct or indirect superiors, and other employees. It's important to remember that mobbing can occur in all directions – both towards superiors and subordinates.
The obligation to counteract mobbing
Before outlining the options available to a mobbed employee, it should be noted that every employer is obligated to counteract mobbing. Legislation has not specified specific actions that constitute mobbing prevention. However, the literature indicates that these actions must be tailored to the organizational nature of the specific workplace, which may include conducting training, introducing the ability to report any unusual behavior that could be classified as mobbing, or implementing anti-mobbing regulations.
Consequences of mobbing
The most common consequence of mobbing is the employee quitting their job. However, the legislature has provided for the possibility of seeking monetary compensation from the employer (regardless of the mobber) in the event of an employee experiencing a health disorder, as well as damages for the employer's failure to fulfill its obligation to counteract mobbing.
First, we should address compensation for harm. This is only payable if the mobbing resulted in a health impairment. Therefore, the employee must not only have been subjected to mobbing but also have suffered a health impairment (from a medical perspective) as a result. After proving the above conditions and the causal relationship between them, the court will award the employee an appropriate sum of money.
The second option is compensation from the employer. This is only available if the employer fails to fulfill its obligation to counteract mobbing. It's worth emphasizing that the existence of mobbing does not preclude the employer from fulfilling this obligation. If the employer has exercised due diligence and can demonstrate a sufficient number of preventative measures, only the perpetrator will be liable (in terms of violation of personal rights).
It is also possible to file a claim for compensation for a serious breach of an employer's obligations towards an employee. It is worth noting that to even attempt to obtain such compensation, mobbing must be listed as a ground for termination in the contract termination document.
Regardless of all the possibilities of obtaining remedies from the employer or the mobber, it should be emphasized that mobbing must be proven. Therefore, the employee should gather evidence, which can be extremely difficult in a situation as extreme as mobbing. It should also be added that such proceedings require thorough preparation. Therefore, before initiating proceedings, it is worth verifying the facts with the persons responsible for such proceedings. Regardless, it should be noted that the employee will most likely have to resign anyway (due to the work environment). However, it is possible that a situation arises in which the employee subjected to mobbing will retain their job and the mobber will be dismissed. However, these issues are very case-specific, so their consideration requires a thorough examination of the facts.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of January 5, 2024
author:
