International: Psychological harassment at the workplace - part one

This is the first part of a comparative feature that examines measures in place in European countries to combat "psychological harassment", or bullying, at the workplace. Among other things, we look at whether there are any recognised definitions of this type of behaviour, whether there has been any research carried out to quantify the extent to which it exists, whether there are any regulatory structures in place, and if there have been any actions brought against perpetrators of workplace bullying.

Background

Ensuring employees' health and safety at work has been steadily climbing up the agenda since the adoption of qualified majority voting on health and safety issues contained in the 1987 Single European Act, and the subsequent adoption and implementation in member states of the 1989 framework Directive on health and safety (89/391). Over the years, the physical safety and environmental aspects of the workplace have been increasingly regulated. More recently, attention has been turning towards the psychosocial workplace hazards that affect the mental wellbeing of employees, such as discrimination of all types, and psychological or moral harassment - also known as bullying, or "mobbing".

European initiatives

In 1999, the European Commission published a document: Guidance on work-related stress: Spice of life - or kiss of death?1 This highlights situations in which bullying may occur: "Stress is caused by a poor match between us and our work, by conflicts between our roles at work and outside it, and by not having a reasonable degree of control over our own work and our own life." One example given is when immigrant workers from non-European countries are working in a host country in which conditions of high unemployment and relative poverty prevail; competition for limited, decreasing or insufficient resources may trigger xenophobia, discrimination, persecution and bullying against members of any "outgroup".

Such targeting can be based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex - or virtually any other characteristic. The manifestations of these actions can be active (verbal and physical abuse or exclusion from networks) or passive, in the sense of denying someone a work permit or a job in spite of the applicant having all the relevant qualifications. Exposure to bullying is recognised as one of the more common stressors - along with exposure to violence and threats.

Stress was identified as a problem by 28% of respondents to the third European survey of working conditions, carried out by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions2. The survey also found that 9% of workers in the EU reported that they were subject to "intimidation" (psychological harassment or bullying) in the workplace.

At its plenary session on 20 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on bullying. It was based on a report on harassment at the workplace that pointed out that this problem is not being taken seriously enough, is often underestimated, and that, as yet, legislation to deal with it only exists in a few European countries.

The resolution acknowledges the seriousness of the problem of bullying at work. It also highlights the fact that some research has shown that women are more frequently the victims of bullying than men, from superiors, inferiors and same-status colleagues. It urges member states to take action to counteract bullying and calls on the Commission to consider amending the 1989 framework Directive (89/391) on health and safety or to consider drafting a new framework Directive as an instrument to combat bullying.

Psychological harassment at the workplace was identified as an important issue in the new four-year European health and safety strategy launched by the Commission in March 2002 (Council: March social affairs Council). Among other things, it announced the Commission's intention to issue a proposal for a Directive on bullying and violence at the workplace and to consult with the social partners on the issue of stress-related conditions - taking account of changes in the world of work and the emergence of new risks. It stated that the increase in psychosocial problems and illnesses poses challenges to the health, safety and wellbeing of workers. Social policy Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou said: "New types of work have created new types of workplace risk, such as stress-related conditions caused by the ever-faster pace of work. These new conditions must be addressed now, and as far as possible anticipated and prevented at the workplace."

Studies and research

Numerous studies have demonstrated the connections between the features of work, work organisation and cooperation and stress reactions, such as one published by the Finnish academic Maarit Vartia3. Ms Vartia also found that work-related factors such as role conflicts, work control, poor flow of information and haste at work can promote bullying.

The above-mentioned European Foundation survey identified a close correlation between new work methods and psychological harassment, with "flexible" work situations at the top of the list for incidence of moral harassment. An analysis of the survey findings carried out by Véronique Daubas-Letourneux and Annie Thébaud4 for the Foundation identified the distinguishing features of this type of work, which are highly flexible working time, a profit-driven (client or user-demand focused) work pace, and quality control procedures. They also noted that other determinants could be the gender division of labour, job insecurity and other factors of discrimination.

Research has also shown that victims of all types of violence at the workplace, whether physical or psychosocial, are reluctant to report it - often for fear that they will be further victimised if they do. Thus, a significant proportion of sickness absence may be attributed to victims staying away from work. Increased levels of psychological complaints, depression, burnout, anxiety, aggression, and also psychosomatic and musculoskeletal health complaints have been associated with psychological harassment, as have suicidal thoughts and actual suicides.

The individual country studies appearing in this and subsequent issues of EIRR demonstrate the widely differing approaches to tackling the problem of psychological harassment at the workplace within Europe and indeed, whether it is even acknowledged as a problem at all. They are listed in alphabetical order. For technical reasons, however, Austria will appear in a later issue.

Belgium

Belgium is one of the few European countries to have already passed anti-harassment legislation (Belgium: New anti-harassment legislation), putting in place the means for dealing with violence and harassment at the workplace.

Definitions

The text of the law contains definitions of violence at work, psychological harassment at work, and sexual harassment at work. The definition of psychological harassment includes references to the systematic use of intimidating and offensive behaviour aimed at humiliating the victim.

Statistics

As well as data collected by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions for its third survey2, there have also been a handful of national studies that have attempted to quantify the incidence of harassment at the workplace.

In the Foundation's survey, 11% of Belgian employees considered that they were victims of harassment or bullying at work (compared with the European average figure of 9%).

A survey carried out by the Belgian civil service indicated that 54% of civil servants knew of cases of harassment at work and that 84% of the respondents considered that it constituted a "serious problem". However, 70% of respondents reported that nothing was done when harassment was taking place. Overall, 2,629 employees out of 60,000 said that they had been a victim of harassment on one occasion.

A survey of 272 subscribers to a secretarial magazine revealed that 27% had personally experienced harassment, while 43% knew of cases where co-workers had been victims. In another small study, a teacher collected over 300 cases of harassment in Flemish schools.

Costs incurred through absence from work on account of harassment

There is no quantified data for Belgium available on the costs to employers, insurance companies or the national health service through absence from work because of psychological harassment at the workplace.

Legislation

As mentioned above, Belgium recently passed a federal law outlawing harassment at the workplace. It was approved on 11 June 2002 and came into force on 1 July 2002. A Royal Decree was issued on 11 July, adding detail on specific aspects such as information for personnel, management training and the organisation of an internal complaints procedure. These are as follows:

  • employers are obliged to carry out a risk assessment with a view to putting prevention measures in place. Such a risk assessment is mandatory in every case of alleged psychological harassment by an employee;

  • with regard to risk assessment, employers are obliged to state explicitly that harassment will not be tolerated by their company. They are also obliged to report the results of risk assessments, as well as the procedures in place to deal with harassment, the rights of employees to lodge complaints, the services that are in place to assist employees and the procedures to be followed by the employer after a complaint has been lodged;

  • management and union shop stewards have a right to receive training and to be aware of the rights of employees and employers' obligations on the subject of harassment; and

  • the internal complaints procedure will consist of two phases. The first phase focuses on conciliation, and excludes employer involvement. The second phase includes employers and presents them with an obligation to solve the problem.

    Codes of practice or non-legislative practical guidelines

    There are no codes of practice or non-legislative practical guidelines in Belgium aimed at dealing with harassment at the workplace.

    Sectoral, national or company agreements on psychological harassment

    There are no agreements of this nature in Belgium.

    Other initiatives

    The Flemish public sector (which employs 11,000 people) set up a reporting point in 1996 for victims of sexual harassment and receives on average between 10 and 25 complaints a year. Since February 2002, this service has been extended to include bullying, and during the first three months it received 11 complaints related to this.

    The Belgian post office (which employs 45,000 people) established an anti-harassment reporting point for complaints of intimidation at the workplace following the suicide of one of its employees in October 2000 (see box below). During the first three months of its existence, it received 279 complaints, of which 149 related to bullying; on average, this reporting point receives around 40 complaints a month. Additionally, the post office issued an anti-harassment charter to all its employees on 21 March 2001.

    A local CSC/ACV union initiative opened a website in September 1999 (www.mobbing.be) and designed a charter that employees are allowed to sign if they want to act against harassment. A national information campaign was launched with leaflets and posters delivering the message that harassment should be taken seriously. Hear, see, keep it silent? Surely not! The goal of the campaign was to activate those people who had witnessed such behaviour at work but had remained silent.

    The major Belgian trade union federations have been active in producing information for their members on the subject of psychological harassment at the workplace. The FGTB/ ABVV suggests that one suicide in 10 is a consequence of bullying and has published a comprehensive guide for its members, available online from the union's website at www.fgtb.be. The CSC/ACV also provides information on its website at www.acv-csc.be

    • Cyprus

    In Cyprus, the concept of psychological harassment at the workplace has not yet been recognised, thus there is no accepted definition of what constitutes this type of behaviour.

    There is, however, indirect reference to psychological harassment from a statutory point of view in Article 7.1 of the Termination of Employment Law (24/1967). Under the terms of this article, an employee may lawfully terminate their employment because of the conduct of the employer. This termination will then be interpreted as unlawful dismissal, providing that the employer is guilty of a significant breach of conduct with regard to the existing employment contract.

    There have been several decisions by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal dealing with this issue that have treated cases of abuse or offensive behaviour by the employer as falling within the jurisdiction of this article. The tribunal has subsequently awarded compensation for unfair dismissal to the employees.

    As regards statistical data, there have been no surveys or studies that aim to quantify the existence or the extent of psychological harassment at the workplace, or that would attempt to quantify the costs of sickness absence taken by victims of harassment.

    Denmark

    Definitions

    Social partner organisations and the government department of health and safety at work have defined psychological harassment at the workplace, including references to the systematic, intimidating and degrading actions of one person towards another.

    Statistics

    The third survey of working conditions in the European Union2 reported that 8% of Danish employees considered that they were victims of bullying at work - one percentage point below the European average of 9%. Beyond this, there is not a great deal of data available quantifying the existence and extent of bullying at the workplace in Denmark.

    A recent study published in the journal Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv5 (Journal for working life) estimates that between 3% and 5% of all employees in Denmark are being bullied. As regards the estimated cost of psychological harassment to society, the local branch of the HK union at Aarhus carried out a local project on bullying at work and suggested that the practice could cost society DKr3.7 billion a year (€5 million).

    Legislation

    In Denmark, bullying is regarded as part of the regulation of health and safety at work as it relates to the mental health of the worker. Until recently, however, the focus of regulation had been on the physical health and safety of employees and their actual working environment - the debate about the psychosocial environment only began a few years ago, as is the case in many other countries.

    In 2001, the social partners and the government agreed that this issue should be regulated by collective accords. Where there were no collective agreements in place, it was agreed that the department of health and safety at work would take on the responsibility. This was one of the main features of new legislation enacted in June 2002 which brought in changes to the health and safety at the workplace Act (Arbejdsmiljøloven). The department of health and safety also issued a bullying and sexual harassment guideline entitled "Mobning og seksuel chikane" (mobbing and sexual harassment) in March 2002.

    National, collective or company agreements

    It is likely that the new round of collective bargaining in 2004 will introduce clauses outlawing the practice of harassment at the workplace. As yet, examples are few and far between.

    Other initiatives

    At company level, issues such as bullying are discussed at meetings of the company cooperation committee (samarbejdsudvalg), and clauses relating to this type of behaviour are typically included in a written cooperation agreement (samarbejdsaftale). They acknowledge the desirability of mutual cooperation in working towards avoiding such practices, while some agreements go further and include a set of recommended actions to outlaw such practices, or, in the event that cases were identified, how to deal with them.

    On the web, information on bullying is provided by the Ledernes Hovedorganisation organisation of managerial and executive staff (www.lederne.dk) and the LO trade union confederation (www.jur.lo.dk).

    Finland

    Definitions

    Many social partner organisations have defined bullying, mobbing or psychological harassment at the workplace. All refer to situations in which someone is subjected to long-lasting, recurrent, serious, negative, hostile acts and annoying and oppressing behaviour. The definition from the ministry of social affairs and health is: "Psychological harassment at the workplace includes verbal and physical aggression, as well as more discreet actions such as the underrating of fellow employees' work, or social isolation. Psychological harassment can contain both physical and psychological violence."

    Statistics

    In the third survey of working conditions in the European Union2, 15% of Finnish employees considered that they were victims of harassment, or bullying, at work (the highest of all the reported data and significantly higher than the European average of 9%).

    There have also been several scientific studies, the earliest dating from 1991. The prevalence of reported bullying at the workplace ranged from 1.6% among a random sample of 385 business professionals with a university degree surveyed in 2001 to 23% among a sample of 896 prison officers in a recent study that has not yet been published.

    A study carried out by the Finnish occupational health institute found an increase from 3.6% to 4.3% in reported cases of psychological harassment between 1997 and 2000. This study looked in detail at the occupations of the victims and found that the upper tier of white-collar workers experienced the most harassment. In this group, 6.7% said that they were being "bullied at the moment", compared with 3.8% of lower tier white-collar workers and 4.2% of blue-collar workers. Most cases were reported in companies of between 10 and 49 employees, compared with 3.2% in large companies employing more than 250 people. As regards the industrial sectors, employees working in the municipal sector were most likely to be bullied (7% of respondents in this sector), compared with 3.4% working in government institutions.

    Costs incurred through absence from work

    A study of 5,655 hospital staff showed that victims of bullying took 1.5% more self-registered sickness absences than non-bullied employees.

    Legislation

    There are several pieces of legislation that may be indirectly applied to cover psychological harassment at the workplace. To date, the most important legislation has been the 1958 Labour Protection Act. However, on 1 January 2003, the new Labour Protection Act will come into force, in which paragraph 28 contains specific anti-harassment references regarding the employer's duties in such cases. It states that if a person is subjected to harassment or other unacceptable behaviour that damages their health, the employer is obliged to take action as soon as this activity is brought to their attention. The new legislation also contains a clause (paragraph 18) defining the employee's general responsibilities, which are: "to avoid such harassment towards other employees, or other indiscreet treatment which can cause hindrance or danger to their safety or health."

    Other initiatives

    There have been a number of initiatives at company level. For instance, many municipalities, universities and large private companies have issued their own practical guidelines.

    Additionally, some trade unions (the Finnish Confederation of Salaried Employees STTK, the SAK-affiliated Service Unions United PAM, and the Municipal Workers' and Employees' Union KTV) have drawn up their own practical guidelines to combat harassment at the workplace. These practical guidelines usually contain a definition of psychological harassment, and provide information on how to recognise harassment and what to do when this type of behaviour takes place. They also specify the obligations of superiors, employers and colleagues in such cases, and offer information on where bullied employees can turn for assistance.

    The STTK also launched a campaign directed against physical and mental aggression at the workplace and, together with the Institute for Human Resources Development (Aktiivi-instituutti), organised a writing competition on the issue of bullying at the workplace - a book of 30 cases/stories has been published.

    In 1993, a voluntary association against bullying (Kiusattujen Tuki) was established to support victims of school violence and their families. Now the association has extended its remit to support people who are bullied at the workplace. The association maintains a national freephone helpline. As well as providing support and a place where victims will be listened to, the helpline gives practical advice on how to find solutions to bullying situations. The callers are not only people who are bullied at school or at work, but also victims' families, friends and other concerned parties. The association actively seeks to remain in the public eye by sending representatives to seminars and training meetings. Commentators believe that its greatest achievement has been initiating public discussion about the issue of bullying.

    The labour ministry launched a programme, entitled the Wellbeing at Work Programme 2000-2003, which is aimed at maintaining wellbeing at the workplace. As well as providing information and promoting good practice, the programme contains guidelines to combat harassment at the workplace.

    A number of social partner organisations also publish policy documents or statements on psychological harassment at the workplace.

    Fatalities

    There have been no acknowledged cases of suicide in Finland directly attributed to bullying at work. However, the leading Finnish researcher in this area, Maarit Vartia, told EIRR that, according to estimation methods developed in Sweden by Heinz Leymann, of 1,400 suicides a year in Finland, a minimum of between 100 and 150 cases a year may be caused by bullying at work.

    France

    France has specific legislation governing bullying. The social modernisation law, which was passed by the French parliament on 17 January 2002, contains new anti-harassment legislation in articles 168 to 180. The legislation adds new provisions to the Labour Code, entitled Lutte contre le harcèlement moral au travail (the fight against moral harassment at the workplace). From the implementation of the new law on 20 January, the prevention of psychological harassment takes its place alongside employers' general health and safety obligations to their workforce.

    Definitions

    Article 169-I of the new law provides for the definition of bullying to be included in Article L.122-49 of the Labour Code. This definition includes reference to repeated, degrading and humiliating behaviour carried out by one person on another. Qualifications of what constitutes bullying behaviour state that one single incident of this type of behaviour does not constitute psychological harassment, neither should warranted and fair disciplinary action by the employer be regarded as bullying. Unintentional harassment is possible, for instance, as regards behaviour that "worsens the victim's working conditions".

    Statistics

    In the third survey of working conditions in the European Union2, 10% of French employees considered that they were victims of harassment or intimidation at work (compared with the European average of 9%).

    There have not been any government studies on the extent of the problem, but a questionnaire was distributed by regional industrial inspector Dr Patrick Loiret to all works doctors in the Poitou-Charentes area in 1999. Entitled the "Enquête HARMOR" (derived from HARcèlement MORal - moral harassment), 153 doctors responded, representing 83.6% of the sample. Of these, 95% reported that they knew of at least one case of bullying, 63.5% that they had encountered quite frequent cases and 21% that they knew of frequent cases. A total of 75% reported serious or very serious cases, resulting, in 82% of these, in either a temporary or a permanent absence from work. Some 65% considered that levels of bullying had been increasing over the past years.

    According to a telephone survey of 471 workers aged 18 or over carried out in May 2000 for the Rebondir magazine, 30% considered that they had been a victim of bullying, and more than one-third (37%) said that they knew of colleagues who had been harassed. Slightly more men (31%) than women (29%) reported that they had been victims, with 35% of senior managers, 27% of intermediate staff, 27% of white-collar workers and 32% of blue-collar workers reporting that they had been bullied. Private companies accounted for 30% of cases while 29% were in the public sector. Regarding the age of the victims, 34% were older than 35, while 24% were younger. Of those respondents earning more than FFr300,000 (€45,732), 19% considered that they had been victims, compared with 35% earning less than FFr108,000.

    There have been no studies that have attempted to quantify the cost of absence from work on account of psychological harassment.

    Legislation

    The new anti-harassment legislation mentioned above outlaws all harassment at all company levels. Articles in the Labour Code relating to sexual harassment (L.122-46) have been modified, taking out reference to the abuse of authority, deliberately not included in the definition of psychological harassment (Article 179) to allow for cases of bullying of a superior by a subordinate. Article 169-I seeks to protect victims, witnesses and those reporting the harassment, while clauses in Article 122-49 of the Labour Code forbid dismissal related to reported cases of psychological harassment.

    The new legislation also allows for the following:

  • A new article in the Labour Code (L.122-51) sets out employers' obligations to prevent harassment; employers are obliged to protect the physical and mental health of their employees (according to L.230-2, II g, of the Labour Code, which has been modified).

  • In enterprises employing more than 50 people, Article 174 of the new law states that the health and safety committee (comité d'hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail) has a duty to contribute to the health and safety of all employees, as well as making proposals for strategies to prevent psychological and sexual harassment. The details are set out in paragraphs contained in L.236-2 of the Labour Code.

  • Staff representatives (délégues du personnel) are obliged to report all cases of harassment that come to their notice to the employer (Article 176). The employer is then duty bound to conduct a joint investigation with the representative and take all necessary steps to put the situation right. If the employer does not do this, or the two parties are unable to agree on the problem, the representative may submit the case to the industrial tribunal for a judgment. The court can order any necessary measures and impose a periodic penalty payment.

  • Article 175 allows the works doctor to make appropriate suggestions that will improve working conditions with regard to the physical and mental health of employees, such as transfer to another post or job changes.

  • Article 171 provides for a system of mediation for victims of moral or sexual harassment, realised through a new Article in the Labour Code, L.122-54. This provides for the appointment of an external mediator from a list of officially designated names.

  • The burden of proof that the alleged acts of harassment have not taken place will rest with the harasser - similar to the conditions imposed by recent anti-discrimination legislation (France: Anti-discrimination law passed). Article 169-I refers to the application of Articles L.122-49 and L.122-46 of the Labour Code with regard to moral and sexual harassment respectively. This is, however, not the case in criminal proceedings.

  • Article 169-I also permits the union to go to court on behalf of the harassment victim. Criminal penalties have been introduced.

  • As well as the disciplinary action by the employer for anyone found guilty of psychological harassment, changes to the penal code allow for the imposition of a one-year prison sentence plus a fine of €15,000 - a similar punishment to that already in place for anyone found guilty of sexual harassment.

    Codes of practice

    There are no codes of practice or non-legislative practical guidelines regarding bullying at the workplace.

    National, collective or company agreements

    This is not dealt with in any agreements between the social partners.

    Other initiatives

    There have been a handful of important publications that have alerted the public at large to the dangers of psychological harassment at the workplace and offered assistance to victims, as well as the establishment of a number of organisations for victims.

    In 1998, the psychiatrist Marie-France Hirigoyen published a book: Harcèlement moral ou la violence perverse au quotidien ("Moral harassment or violence on a daily basis"), which provided one of the first definitions of psychological harassment and made the general public aware of its existence.

    The psychiatrist Christophe Dejours published a book: Souffrance en France ("Suffering in France"), in which he wrote about the harassment, injustice and discrimination that exists at workplaces.

    The lawyer Philippe Ravisy, who was one of the first advocates to represent victims of psychological harassment, wrote a book in 2000, Harcèlement au travail ("Harassment at work"), to assist harassment victims through the maze of industrial tribunals.

    Other initiatives include: Harcèlement Moral Stop, an anti-bullying organisation, with a web page at www.hmstop.com; Mots pour maux au travail, a group of industrial doctors, psychologists specialising in work, and lawyers, and is accessible via http://xaumtom.multimania.com; and ACHP France (Association Contre le Harcèlement Professional), which is an association of professionals against harassment, with a web page at www.ifrance.com/achp/.

    Policy documents

    Arguably the most important policy document was that issued in April 2001 by the government economic and social council recommending legislation to outlaw psychological harassment. This provided the framework for the legal definition, and acknowledged that harassment can take place between colleagues as well as between superiors and subordinates.

    An important contribution to the policy document was the opinion of the professional human resource managers' association ANDCP, which, on the basis of 160 responses to a questionnaire, underlined that the director of personnel has a duty to clarify the situation and to intervene so as to make the perpetrators of the harassment aware of their responsibility.


    Cases on psychological harassment at the workplace

    Belgium

    There is currently a case awaiting judgement in the Belgian courts concerning the suicide of a young postman. In October 2000, David van Geysel, employed at the Wezenbeek-Oppem office committed suicide. A number of his colleagues are being prosecuted for their involvement in his bullying, and the employer, the Belgian post office, also faces legal action.

    The charges were brought under a general law pertaining to "unintentional killing", since the law on harassment states that the victim has to initiate the complaint, which, in this case, was not possible. The trial was scheduled to take place during October 2002, but on 1 October, the judge decided to postpone the trial, and no new date has yet been set. This was because the court granted the request of the defendants' lawyers to speak to the colleagues of the deceased first. They allegedly believe that these colleagues can affirm that the postman was not capable of carrying out his work.

    During May and June 2002, a second case of harassment surfaced at the post office, when an employee at the Ottignies office brought charges against five colleagues. Following an internal enquiry, the complaint was accepted and the five perpetrators were suspended. However, co-workers went out on strike in support of the five suspended employees.

    In June 2002, another case of harassment came to light at the Belgian post office, this time at the Seneffe branch. Following the charges, co-workers went out on strike against the forced transfer of the accused manager.

    Finland

    One successful case was brought by a cleaning lady against her immediate superior in 1992 on the grounds that he had called her abusive names. She was awarded damages for defamation.

    There have also been several cases that were all dropped because of lack of evidence. The burden to prove that psychological harassment has taken place rests with the victim and - despite the presence of witnesses and medical certificates reporting sickness absence because of depression - cases have almost invariably failed. Cases alleging discrimination, on the other hand, appear more likely to succeed.

    France

    In 1999, an automobile equipment supplier (société Hella) was successfully taken to court by the family of an employee who had committed suicide. In December 1997, Gilles Chapet, an employee of the company since 1991, committed suicide, following a series of complaints about his work (despite the fact that he had been praised by the company for his achievements the previous year) and was threatened with dismissal. The courts found that the company had been responsible for his suicide and awarded his widow and son FFr100,000 (€15,245) damages. Two other cases brought in which an employee had committed suicide have not resulted in successful verdicts for the families of the deceased.

    Two judgements were recently returned by the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal on legislation that was in force prior to the new anti-harassment legislation. Both judgements found that the employer was responsible for actions of a subordinate who had bullied their employees - in one of the cases, it was the employer's wife who had perpetrated the bullying, which took the form of name-calling and bad treatment.

    There have also been a number of cases that were taken to the industrial tribunal and the appeal court. One case that went to an industrial tribunal concerned an employee at the CRAM Normandy regional sickness benefit agency. The victim was awarded €45,700 against the CRAM medical service.

    The first case brought under the new legislation in October 2002 concerned the former director of programmes for CanalNumedia, the internet subsidiary of Canal Plus. She claimed, unsuccessfully, to have been forced out of her job on account of a nervous depression, brought on by repeated humiliation.

    1European Commission, "Guidance on work-related stress: Spice of life - or kiss of death?", available at: www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/health_safety/publicat/stress_en.pdf.

    2Pascal Paoli and Damien Merllié, "Third European survey on working conditions 2000", European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg, 2001.

    3Maarit A-L Vartia, "Consequences of workplace bullying with respect to the wellbeing of its targets and the observers of bullying", Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 2001, 27(1): pp.63-69.

    4Véronique Daubas-Letourneux and Annie Thébaud-Mony, "Organisation du travail et santé dans l'Union Européene", European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg, 2002.

    5Einarsen, S., Mikkelsen, E.G.: Mobning i arbejdslivet: Hvad er det og hvad ved vi om det?, pp.7-24 in Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, 2. arg., nr. 1, 2000.