We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
27 January 2016
The Supreme Court has issued a decision (158/2016) concerning workplace harassment – so-called 'mobbing' – with specific attention to the intentionality of the persecutory conduct.
The case involved an employee who claimed against his employer for an injury that he alleged was related to the employer's mobbing conduct. In particular, the employee claimed that the injury derived from the employer having placed the employee on unemployment insurance and forcing him to take a short vacation.
The court noted that in order to be considered mobbing, the alleged misconduct must be sustained over a long period and occur with high frequency. Further, it must consist of a pattern of persecutory workplace behaviour undertaken by the employer as a form of 'psychological terrorism' with the intention of abusing the employee in multiple ways.
Case law has identified the following factors that must be present – and which the employee must prove – in order to make a workplace harassment claim for mobbing:
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal court's ruling that the employer's placement of the employee on unemployment insurance and order for him to take a short vacation did not constitute mobbing, because it could not be proven that the employer had clearly intended to marginalise and ostracise the employee in his working environment as a means of provoking him to resign. Without such evidence, the employer's liability could not be upheld.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.