{"id":3889,"date":"2026-08-24T12:41:21","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T12:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/?p=3889"},"modified":"2026-10-23T11:21:33","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T11:21:33","slug":"workplace-bullying-response-model","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/workplace-bullying-response-model\/","title":{"rendered":"Workplace Bullying and Discrimination: Build a Response Model"},"content":{"rendered":"

Your anti-bullying policy has been sitting on the intranet since 2021. No one has read it, HR does not know how to apply it, and managers do not even know it exists. Tomorrow, HR receives its first serious complaint. What do you do?<\/p>\n

Most companies, especially in IT, SaaS, and scale-ups, have some kind of document: a policy, rules, or a set of principles. The problem is that a document is not a response model. According to research by the Safe at Work Coalition, 39% of employees do not know whether their company has an anti-bullying procedure<\/strong>, and only 29% say their company takes concrete action. Meanwhile, CBOS data from 2024 show that 40% of working people experienced at least one form of improper treatment in the past 5 years<\/strong>. In 2024, the National Labour Inspectorate received more than 2,600 complaints alleging bullying or discrimination<\/strong>, still only a fraction of the actual scale of the problem.<\/p>\n

There is also the draft amendment to the Labour Code (UD183)<\/strong>, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 17 February 2026 and referred to Parliament. It simplifies the definition of workplace bullying, removes the requirement to prove a health disorder, and introduces minimum compensation equal to six times the minimum wage. Employers with at least 9 employees would have to set out anti-bullying rules in their work regulations.<\/p>\n

This article explains how to turn a dormant policy into a working response model, from roles and reporting routes, through the first 72 hours after a report, to its relationship with the Whistleblower Protection Act.<\/p>\n

Key terms you need to know<\/h2>\n

Before moving to the practical steps, it is useful to clarify the terminology. The table below collects terms used later in the article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nMeaning<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Workplace bullying (mobbing, Labour Code Article 94\u00b3 \u00a7 2)<\/strong><\/td>\nPersistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of an employee. The current definition requires several conditions to be met together; the draft amendment simplifies it to \u201cpersistent harassment.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Discrimination (Labour Code Articles 18\u00b3\u1d43 to 18\u00b3\u1d49)<\/strong><\/td>\nUnequal treatment of an employee because of sex, age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, or another characteristic. It covers the entire employment relationship, from recruitment to termination.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Compensation for non-pecuniary harm<\/strong><\/td>\nA monetary award for non-material harm, such as psychological suffering. Under the current law, the claimant must prove a health disorder; the amendment would remove this requirement.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Damages (Labour Code Article 94\u00b3 \u00a7 4)<\/strong><\/td>\nAn award for pecuniary loss. The minimum is the current minimum wage for work, PLN 4,806 gross from 1 January 2026, with no upper limit.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Investigation<\/strong><\/td>\nAn internal process for examining a report, conducted by an anti-bullying committee, an appointed person, or an external entity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Anti-bullying committee<\/strong><\/td>\nA team appointed by the employer to review a report. Its findings may have evidentiary value but do not bind the labour court.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Exculpation<\/strong><\/td>\nThe employer avoiding liability by showing that it took real and objectively effective preventive measures.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Why an anti-bullying policy alone does not protect an employer<\/h2>\n

In judgment I PK 35\/11 of 3 August 2011<\/strong>, the Supreme Court determined that the duty to prevent workplace bullying is an obligation to exercise due care<\/strong>, not an obligation to achieve a result. An employer can avoid liability, but only by demonstrating that it took real preventive measures with objective potential to be effective, such as training, procedures, and informing the team.<\/p>\n

In judgment III PSKP 8\/23 of 6 July 2023<\/strong>, the Supreme Court held that an anti-bullying procedure is not required by statute: Labour Code Article 94\u00b3 \u00a7 1 is general, and the choice of measures belongs to the employer. But the absence of any action makes exculpation significantly harder.<\/p>\n

What this means for your company<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Situation<\/th>\nConsequence<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
You have a policy, but no one knows or uses it<\/td>\nA paper policy is not evidence that you exercised due care.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You have a policy and train managers, but no reporting procedure<\/td>\nThere is a response gap. When a report arrives, HR improvises.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You have a procedure, but the anti-bullying committee does not substantiate bullying<\/td>\nThe committee\u2019s findings do not bind the labour court (District Court judgment IV P 101\/23); the court assesses the matter independently.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
You have no preventive measures<\/td>\nThe court may find the employer liable for a supervisor\u2019s bullying (District Court judgment VI P 304\/17).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The takeaway: a document on the intranet is not enough. Courts assess the reality and effectiveness<\/strong> of the steps taken, not just their form.<\/p>\n

2026 Labour Code amendment: what it would change for employers<\/h2>\n

Draft UD183 passed its first reading in Parliament on 25 March 2026 and was referred to the Extraordinary Committee for Codification Amendments. As of this article\u2019s publication, the provisions were not in force, but the direction of change was clear.<\/p>\n

A new definition of workplace bullying<\/h3>\n

The current definition requires several conditions to be met together: persistence, duration, harassment or intimidation, and specific effects such as an undermined assessment of professional suitability, humiliation, or isolation. The proposed definition simplifies workplace bullying to \u201cpersistent harassment of an employee,\u201d<\/strong> where persistence means repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Feature<\/th>\nCurrent definition<\/th>\nProposed definition<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Requirement of long duration<\/td>\nYes, a separate condition<\/td>\nNo; \u201cpersistence\u201d includes repetition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Requirement of a specific effect<\/td>\nYes, such as a lowered assessment, humiliation, or isolation<\/td>\nNo; effects would affect the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary harm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Requirement of the perpetrator\u2019s intent<\/td>\nNot expressly, although case law allowed for unintentional bullying<\/td>\nNo; an intent requirement is expressly excluded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Incidental conduct<\/td>\nCould qualify if the conditions were met<\/td>\nExpressly excluded from the definition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Justified criticism of work<\/td>\nNo express exclusion<\/td>\nExpressly excluded from the scope of workplace bullying<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

New duties and claims<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. A duty to actively and continuously prevent workplace bullying<\/strong>, covering prevention, detection, response, and corrective action.<\/li>\n
  2. A duty to set out procedures in the work regulations or an announcement<\/strong> for employers with at least 9 employees.<\/li>\n
  3. Minimum compensation for non-pecuniary harm: six times the minimum wage<\/strong>, about PLN 28,836 using the PLN 4,806 minimum wage from 1 January 2026.<\/li>\n
  4. Removal of the health-disorder requirement<\/strong> as a condition for seeking compensation for non-pecuniary harm. A finding of workplace bullying would be enough.<\/li>\n
  5. A recourse claim by the employer<\/strong> against the direct perpetrator after paying benefits to the employee.<\/li>\n
  6. Transfer of workplace-bullying cases to district courts<\/strong>, regardless of the value of the claim.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The proposed vacatio legis is 21 days<\/strong> from publication in the Journal of Laws, with an additional period to update work regulations, either 3 or 6 months. The source materials conflict, and the final period was unknown until the law is enacted.<\/p>\n

    Contact us<\/a> if you want to check whether your current procedures meet the proposed amendment\u2019s requirements.<\/p>\n

    The scale of the problem: figures that should concern management<\/h2>\n

    Formal complaints to the National Labour Inspectorate are only the tip of the iceberg. Data from different sources show the gap between official statistics and employees\u2019 actual experiences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Data source<\/th>\nPeriod<\/th>\nFinding<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    National Labour Inspectorate (PIP): bullying complaints<\/td>\n2024<\/td>\nAbout 1,900 complaints<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    PIP: bullying and discrimination complaints combined<\/td>\n2024<\/td>\nMore than 2,600 complaints<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    PIP: legal advice concerning bullying<\/td>\n2024<\/td>\n1,367, a 60% year-over-year increase<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    CBOS<\/td>\n2024<\/td>\n40% of working people experienced improper treatment within 5 years<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    UCE Research \/ ePsycholodzy.pl<\/td>\n2023<\/td>\n41.4% experienced bullying-type conduct within 6 months<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Safe at Work Coalition<\/td>\nLatest available<\/td>\n52% of employees say they have experienced workplace bullying<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Antal \/ Dobra Fundacja report<\/td>\n713 respondents<\/td>\n93% experienced conduct that could constitute workplace bullying at least once<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Court data for 2025: 692 workplace-bullying cases in district courts<\/strong> and 262 in regional courts, with only 44 favorable rulings<\/strong> among nearly 1,000 cases. The low success rate does not mean the problem does not exist. It reflects the burden of proof on the employee<\/strong> and the fact that many cases end in a settlement or withdrawal of the claim.<\/p>\n

    Industries with the highest complaint rate (2024)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Industry<\/th>\nComplaints per 100,000 workers<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Culture, entertainment, and recreation<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Accommodation and food services<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Trade and repairs<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Waste and wastewater management<\/td>\nAbout 10 to 11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Real estate services<\/td>\nAbout 10 to 11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Education<\/td>\nAbout 10 to 11<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    IT does not appear at the top of PIP statistics, but that does not mean the risk is low. Technology companies often combine employment and B2B models, have flat structures with unclear divisions of responsibility, and grow quickly, creating tensions that may never become formal complaints.<\/p>\n