More reports of bullying during crisis
Every economic crisis is a huge challenge for employers and HR professionals. Most of their efforts are focused on employment restructuring and reducing labor costs. Difficult management decisions are usually accompanied by a lot of tension and feelings of injustice among employees. Unfortunately, in addition to many stressful situations and conflicts, in times of economic crisis there is usually also a significant increase in the number of cases of bullying, discrimination, harassment or other inappropriate practices reported by employees. A large part of the allegations can come from employees affected by economic layoffs.
Free worker takes courage.
It is not a good strategy for an employer to treat all advance notifications as the obvious invention of embittered employees. It is worth looking at each case individually to minimize future risks of legal and compensation liability for the employer.
From the perspective of an EMPLOYEE who has already received a notice of termination, reporting the bullying to the employer in writing with a detailed description of the events may be a good move. If the employee was previously afraid to report the matter or faced a lack of response, he already has little to lose and can give the employer one last chance to draw consequences against the bully. On the other hand, if the employer fails to respond, the fired employee has evidence that can be presented in the labor court in the future.
From the perspective of the EMPLOYER, a report of harassment containing basic facts and a description of the events means that an investigation must be undertaken (even if the employer has not implemented an internal procedure against harassment and discrimination). Ignoring such a report and failing to provide feedback to the employee may in the future be interpreted by the labor court as a violation of the duty to prevent undesirable practices in the workplace, or even as a co-factor if the employer already had knowledge of them and did not react (gave consent). The employer also loses the chance to repair relations within the company and risks further claims in the future (e.g., if the perpetrator of undesirable behavior continues to work for the company and finds further victims).
Lest employers' vigilance be dulled by the downtime of the labor courts and the anticipated increase in case processing times in the coming years..
Even before the pandemic, the waiting time for the first hearing in the labor court in Warsaw averaged 3 months, and most bullying and discrimination trials took about 3 years (in smaller cities these deadlines were shorter). It can be estimated that after the pandemic these deadlines, as a result of the "digging out" of the courts from the backlog of cases, will become longer.
When the third power is heavily overloaded, it is efficiently replaced by the fourth and fifth powers, namely the media and the Internet..
There are many well-known cases where the exposure in the press and social media of companies' malpractice toward their employees resulted in a powerful image crisis and a negative reaction from their customers for a long time. It is in the employer's interest to respond to any signs of undesirable behavior at the earliest possible stage, clarify them internally and settle matters amicably before they go to court or the media. Therefore, in any situation of deciding not to respond to reported cases of bullying or other improper practices
The employer and its HR department should analyze well the potential image and financial costs of such an omission..
How to respond to reports of bullying.
If the employer has implemented an internal procedure against harassment and discrimination in the workplace, receiving a report of abnormal behavior, he follows its provisions (the law gives him the freedom to choose preventive measures and ways to explain the cases).
However, it is not only the written declarations that count, but above all the real and effective actions of the employer to clarify irregularities..
Despite the increasingly widespread implementation of internal anti-bullying procedures, most Polish employers still do not have them. Regardless, employers are obliged to respond to reports of undesirable behavior.
In the situation of receiving a formal notification of an employee, the employer should take the following actions:.
Immediately after receiving the report, confirm to the employee in writing that it will be clarified by the employer and the employee will receive feedback on the results of the investigation (the expected end date may be indicated).
If the matter is fairly straightforward and can be clarified by the employer/HR department based on the data and documents in its possession, it is sufficient to draft a memo and send it to the employee for information.
In more complex cases, especially those involving bullying, the employer should appoint a committee to investigate. Depending on the complexity of the case, this can be an internal commission (made up only of company employees), a mixed commission (involving company employees and an external expert) or an external commission (made up of experienced external experts). Read more about the role of the committee in my article "Who is responsible for the Anti-Mobbing Commission's mistakes?": https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/kto-odpowiada-za-b%C5%82%C4%99dy-komisji-antymobbingowej-dorota-strzelec/
Information about the initiation of the investigation should be communicated to the reporting employee, along with an invitation to the employee to submit further explanations to the committee. The employer may also provide the employee in writing or orally with more detailed information on the rules of the anti-bullying commission (if not described in the internal procedure), indicate the benefits of the employee's participation in the investigation, and inform that the investigation will proceed despite the employee's possible refusal to participate.
Provide the employee with a copy of the protocol or written feedback on the results of the investigation.
In my several years of experience, it is extremely rare for fired employees to refuse to participate in an internal investigation. The prospect of quickly clarifying the matter and drawing consequences against the alleged bully is more favorable to the aggrieved party than getting embroiled in a long-running lawsuit. Also, attending hearings and constantly revisiting negative incidents will delay the employee's return to mental equilibrium. On the other hand, from the employer's perspective
Processing employee claims through internal proceedings saves time, costs and minimizes potential image damage..
Also, if the employer learns that an employee has initiated legal proceedings, it will be reasonable to conduct an internal investigation. It is worth remembering that as long as the ball is in play, i.e. there is no court judgment, the employer can take all actions in accordance with the law and good practices to prevent bullying and other undesirable practices in the work environment and minimize their negative effects (including, among other things, conducting investigations, drawing consequences against the actual perpetrators, implementing preventive and corrective measures, training employees, offering assistance and support to the victim of bullying, making a settlement proposal to the employee). Demonstrating to the labor court the employer's high sensitivity to these issues and taking effective action can ultimately affect the amount of compensation and damages awarded from the employer to the injured employee.
IMPORTANT RULINGS
Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 8, 2017, I PK 206/16
The employer's inaction constitutes a "co-contributor" to the negative health effects of the mobbing and results in the award of significantly higher financial compensation (up to twice the amount) to the injured employee. The culpable failure to prevent bullying by the bully's superiors, which affects or co-contributes to the disclosed health disorder caused by the bully, should be assessed as an event that increases or aggravates the sense of harm to the employee subjected to bullying.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of August 3, 2011, I PK 35/11
The duty to counteract mobbing is to act diligently. If, in court proceedings, the employer demonstrates that it has taken real and effective measures to counteract mobbing, it can absolve itself of liability (only the actual perpetrator of mobbing can be held liable).
Author:
Dorota Strzelec.
Psychologist, career counselor, crisis intervener, coach, trainer NZOZ Center for Professional Assistance Specializes in projects concerning the formation of proper labor relations and the prevention of unequal treatment and bullying, including the development of internal procedures, training for employees and managers, audits of team relations, mediation and resolution of labor conflicts. For more than a dozen years, he has regularly participated in external and mixed committees conducting investigations of employers. He also conducts specialized workshops for internal anti-bullying committees and ombudsmen to prepare them for their function.
