Unintentional nature of mobbing – judgment of the Supreme Court of February 22, 2023

Mobbing in accordance with its code definition contained in Art. 943 of the Labor Code: „means actions or behavior relating to an employee or directed against an employee, consisting in persistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of an employee, causing him to lower his professional suitability, causing or intended to humiliate or ridicule the employee, isolating him or her or eliminating him from the team co-workers.” This provision created a legal issue related to the unintentional nature of mobbing and the lack of effect, which had to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In the judgment in question, the Supreme Court stated that „recognizing a specific behavior as mobbing does not require either a finding on the part of the harasser of action aimed at achieving a goal (intention) or the occurrence of an effect. It is sufficient that the employee was the object of influence which, according to an objective measure, can be assessed as causing one of the effects specified in Art. 943 §2 of the Labor Code.” The Supreme Court also found that when assessing behavior considered as mobbing, the „reasonable victim” model should be used, which allows separating behavior caused by the employee’s hypersensitivity from behavior that actually constitutes mobbing. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the position it took in the above case results from the fact that in practice it is unlikely to prove intentional intent. In certain cases, mobbing may also involve taking actions within the limits of the supervisor’s statutory rights. Therefore, the superior’s behavior does not have to be illegal