At the end of January 2025, a draft Labour Code amendment was published proposing changes to the definition of workplace bullying, employers’ prevention duties and their liability. It has been referred for public consultation, with Council of Ministers approval planned for the third quarter of 2025. The new rules will most likely take effect in early 2026.
The explanatory memorandum states that, more than twenty years after the institution was introduced, amendment is necessary because protection is insufficient and developments in scholarship, case law, psychology and sociology must be considered.
The cited research found that 93% of respondents had experienced bullying, of whom 90% reported deteriorating mental health and 75% worse physical health. The current rules are clearly insufficient to prevent it. Employers also lose: affected employees show reduced productivity (70%), increased absence (43%), and 45% change jobs or seek another one.
The memorandum notes that evidential difficulties and misunderstanding of bullying mean that of 551 cases in 2022, 192 concluded and claims were upheld fully or partly in only 17. Claims were dismissed in 62, meaning the great majority did not receive a merits determination, probably because of settlements. Compared with the scale of abuse, these figures show employees’ strong reluctance to litigate.
A new definition of workplace bullying
The draft defines bullying as persistent harassment of an employee, with persistence meaning repeated, recurring or constant conduct. It gives an open list of examples:
- humiliation or affronts to dignity;
- intimidation;
- undervaluing professional suitability;
- unjustified criticism, degradation or ridicule;
- hindering workplace functioning in achieving results, performing duties, using skills, communicating with colleagues or accessing necessary information;
- isolation or exclusion from the team.
The conduct may involve physical, verbal or non-verbal elements.
Ordering or encouraging another person to engage in these behaviours also constitutes bullying. Unintentional behaviour capable of producing a specified effect may qualify regardless of whether the effect actually occurs.
Assessment considers both objective impact and the employee’s subjective feelings or reactions where rational.
The perpetrator may be the employer, a supervisor, peer, subordinate, another employee or someone engaged outside an employment relationship, including under a management, service or B2B contract.
Unlike the current definition, the proposal does not require proof of prolonged duration or an actual effect of reduced professional self-esteem, humiliation, ridicule, isolation or exclusion.
It incorporates settled case law by specifying that bullying (i) is recurrent or constant, rather than one-off; (ii) may come from any worker, including supervisors and subordinates; (iii) does not depend on intent or actual effects; and (iv) is assessed using a “rational victim” model.
The illustrative list may help readers understand the definition immediately. Although lawyers generally criticise overly detailed, case-based lawmaking, I consider it justified here. Any employee, regardless of education, should find it easier to recognise bullying after reading the examples and definition.
Employer liability
The proposed changes provide for:
- a minimum compensation threshold for non-pecuniary harm, meaning mental suffering, of at least six months’ remuneration. Employees may also pursue damages under general rules;
- exemption from liability if (i) the perpetrator was not the employee’s supervisor and (ii) the employer implemented anti-bullying prevention duties in work regulations or an announcement.
Currently, an employee may claim compensation for non-pecuniary harm, general damages and, if bullying led them to terminate employment, compensation of at least one month’s statutory minimum wage. They must prove persistence and prolonged duration, inherently difficult matters usually requiring extensive evidence. For non-pecuniary compensation, they must also prove a health disorder and its causal connection to bullying.
An employer can currently avoid liability by showing genuine and potentially effective preventive measures. The proposal goes much further: where a supervisor bullies a subordinate, the employer will always be liable even if appropriate procedures were implemented.
Employers’ obligations
The amendment requires active, continuous prevention through preventive measures, detection, appropriate responses, remedial action and support for victims. This develops and expands the existing duty.
Employers not covered by a collective agreement or required to establish work regulations will have to issue an announcement specifying the principles, procedure and frequency of actions to prevent breaches of employees’ dignity and other personal rights, unequal treatment, discrimination and bullying.
The announcement should be agreed with workplace trade unions or, if none exist, employee representatives.
Employers with work regulations must adapt them or issue new ones reflecting the proposed changes.
Implementing these duties will allow employers to avoid bullying liability, except where supervisors bully their subordinates.
Conclusion
The changes may strengthen protection, reduce employers’ tendency to underestimate bullying and, through a simple cost-benefit calculation, encourage removal of managers who bully. Eliminating or substantially reducing bullying would improve productivity and health and consequently employers’ profits.
Everyone loses from bullying: employers risk losing valuable staff and increased turnover, while employees suffer health damage, reduced motivation and potentially a decisive reason to change jobs.
For employers, properly implementing prevention mechanisms may be crucial to exemption where the perpetrator is not a supervisor. A complete assessment must await the final bill after consultation and committee review, which may differ from the published proposal.
