WARNING !!! automatic translation from Polish

  • Art. 94 [3] § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the employer is obliged to counteract mobbing.
    The consequence of this obligation of not complying with it is the employer's responsibility, also in such a case when he is not personally involved in the use of mobbing, or was not interested in whether mobbing is applied to the employees he employs.
    In the absence of appropriate actions in the field of counteracting mobbing, the employer's liability is in the form of compensation or redress for the employee who suffered a health disorder.
  • Art. 94 [3] § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure talks about a situation in which the employee terminated the employment contract as a result of mobbing. In this case, he is entitled to compensation from the employer of not less than the minimum wage.
    § 5 of this provision requires the employee's statement to terminate the employment contract in writing with the mobbing as the reason justifying the termination of the contract. There must be a causal relationship between mobbing and termination of employment. The employee claiming damages must prove the existence of mobbing.
  • Art. 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure the employee has the option of terminating the employment relationship without notice due to a serious breach by the employer of the basic obligations.
However, this option only exists if the employer does not counteract workplace harassment.

  You can also claim your rights, including persons employed on a basis other than an employment contract based on provisions protecting personal rights:

  • Art. 445 of the Civil Code creates the possibility of claiming an adequate amount of compensation in the event that the employer's practices have led to an employee's health disorder.
  • Art. 448 of the Civil Code says that in the event of a breach of a personal good, the court may order an appropriate amount of pecuniary compensation for non-material damage.
    § 2 grants the injured party the opportunity to repair material damage caused by the violation of personal rights.

In such a situation, art. 415 of the Civil Code declaring that he who caused harm to another through his fault is obliged to make good it.

  It should be noted that the amount of compensation may not exceed the actual damage suffered.

Therefore, according to the theory of full compensation, the possibility of claiming rights from the employer pursuant to art. 94 [3] § 3 and art. 445 of the Civil Code

Use of protection granted by art. 94 [3] CCP it does not deprive the employee of the possibility to assert his rights granted by other provisions.

Thus, the employee is not deprived of the right to seek, e.g. rectification of a work certificate or annulment of order.

  Protection against mobbing, however, cannot mean disregarding the employee's discipline and obligations towards the employer, or the employee's inappropriate behavior in the workplace. It also does not mean depriving the employer of managerial competences and the ability to assess the work of an employee. The employer still has the option of applying the disciplinary penalties and order penalties provided for in the Labor Code. On the other hand, an employee cannot refuse to fulfill his obligation, even if there is reason to believe that this obligation is the result of his persecution.

It should be emphasized that the district court is only competent to recognize a given situation as mobbing.

Returning to the employee's compensation.

Its amount may not exceed the value of the damage suffered by the employee, which is consistent with the theory of full compensation. Following in the footsteps of the employee claiming his claims should remember that the same possibility of simultaneous reference to art. 94 [3] § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and art. 445 of the Civil Code

Compensation is due even if the employee has not suffered actual material damage. In this case, the compensation claimed by him may not be lower than the minimum wage. The higher amount of compensation obtained is only possible if the employee proves that he has suffered more material damage as a result of the termination of his employment relationship.


  A person against whom the employer has violated the principle of equal treatment in employment, has the right to compensation in an amount not lower than the minimum remuneration for work, determined on the basis of separate provisions.

  The employee's exercise of rights arising from a breach of the principle of equal treatment in employment may not constitute a reason justifying the termination by the employer of the employment relationship or its termination without notice.

  An employee whose harassment caused a health disorder may claim from the employer an adequate amount of money in damages for the harm suffered.

  An employee who, as a result of mobbing, terminated the employment contract, has the right to doc claim compensation from the employer in an amount not lower than the minimum remuneration for work, determined on the basis of separate provisions. The employee's statement about the termination of the employment contract should be made in writing with the employer's actions or behavior as the reason justifying the termination of the contract.

In addition, the Penal Code provides that anyone who, through abuse of dependence or the use of a critical position, leads another person to sexual intercourse or to undergo another sexual act or to perform such act, shall be punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years.

  Regardless of the employee seeking claims arising from psychological harassment, the employer may be punishable by fulfilling the characteristics of the offenses referred to in art. 151 of the Penal Code (lead by persuasion or by giving help to take on your own life), art. 156 of the Criminal Code (causing serious damage to health), art. 157 of the Penal Code (causing violation of bodily functions or health disorders), art. 158 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code. (participation in a fight or beating), art. 190 § 1 of the Criminal Code (threat), art. 191 § 1 of the Criminal Code (use of violence or unlawful threat), art. 207 of the Penal Code (physical or psychological abuse), art. 212 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code. (slander), art. 216 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code. (insults), art. 217 § 1 of the Penal Code (impact or other violation of bodily integrity), art. 218 § 1 and 2 of the Penal Code (malicious or persistent violation of employee rights), art. 219 of the Penal Code (not reporting or reporting false data to the social security body), art. 220 § 1 of the Penal Code (failure to comply with OHS obligations by exposure to direct danger of loss of life or serious damage to health), Art. 267 of the Penal Code (obtaining information without authorization) and art. 268 of the Penal Code (destroying, damaging, deleting or changing the record of relevant information or obstructing reading it by an authorized person), as well as offenses provided for in art. 107 as above (malicious misleading or maliciously disturbing) or art. 283 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (failure to comply with health and safety regulations or rules).