The basic function of labor law is to protect the rights and interests of the weaker party in the relationship – the employee. As a result, a number of obligations have been imposed on employers. The wording of Article 94[3] of the Labor Code states that counteracting mobbing is among those mentioned.
„Mobbing” can be broadly defined as negative behavior of the employer in professional work situations that causes anxiety, fear and long-term concerns among some employees. However, we must not forget that the employment relationship is based on the employee’s subordination to the employer while performing work. The managerial role of the employer is inextricably linked to, among others, with personnel management, which includes issuing business orders. Basically, disciplining employees or imposing disciplinary penalties on them does not constitute mobbing. However, as emphasized by the Court of Appeal in Białystok, in the judgment of June 30, 2015, if the employer’s behavior is instrumental and not aimed at achieving the goals resulting from the concluded employment contract, it can be called mobbing (Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Białystok of June 30, 2015 r., III APa 6/15, LEX no. 1781864.). Therefore, as is often the case with a branch of law such as labor law, each case should be assessed ad casum. The distinction is assessed according to objective criteria. However, in no case may an employer, within the scope of his directive powers, engage in behavior that could violate an employee’s dignity. In its judgment of December 8, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the issuance of lawful work orders by an employer does not, in principle, constitute a violation of an employee’s dignity (personal rights), unequal treatment or discrimination, or mobbing (Judgment of the Supreme Court of April 22, 2015 ., II PK 166/14, LEX no. 1712815.). For example, an order to be on duty is absolutely legal. However, doubts may arise when on-call duties are always assigned to the same person, as it could be concluded that on-call duties are meaningless and are imposed on the employee only as an additional obligation. In view of the above, it can be generally stated that on-duty duty must be performed for some purpose, and not for its own sake. Similarly, as emphasized by the Court of Appeal in Poznań in its judgment, permitted criticism, control or issuing business orders to an employee to ensure proper organization of work cannot be considered a manifestation of mobbing. In the above-mentioned judgment, the court correctly found that reminding about timely performance of work, recording lateness, or obtaining the signature of superiors on the documentation do not constitute harassment of the employee (Judgement of the Court of Appeal in Poznań of January 13, 2021, III APa 12/20, LEX No. 3338711. ).
To sum up, because the employment relationship is inherent in the employee’s subordination to the employer – an official order or other similar manifestations of disciplining employees – do not constitute elements of mobbing. However, if the employee proves, in accordance with the principle of onus probandi, that the employer’s behavior was humiliating, degraded the employee’s dignity or was intended to ridicule him in the eyes of the team, and was persistent, long-lasting, caused a low self-assessment of the employee’s professional suitability and resulted or was intended to purpose of isolating or eliminating him – he will be able to effectively bring before the court an allegation of violation of Art. 94[3] of the Labor Code, i.e. mobbing committed by the employer.
english
