Ninguneos daily by email, humiliating comments about the size of your clothes, reproaches for never joining, criticism for any decision or comment, marginalize it of meetings to which you previously attended and blame it for otherwise errors. For Francisca – a fictitious name – his office became hell since he joined his maternity leave and requested a reduction in working hours to take care of his son. He began to suffer stress and sleep at night. He was prescribed pills after several anxiety crises and was under psychiatric monitoring for possible mobbing (workplace harassment). After several years supporting the displacements, the last episode of anxiety forced her to go to the emergency room. The next day, he suffered an abortion of an incipient pregnancy. Low, he has sued his boss and his company for not stopping it and expects the celebration of the judgment but what do we talk about when we say harassment? Although it is subtle, «it must be a serious, planned and repeated work harassment by one or more active subjects, which can be superior, classmates, subordinates or even third parties, such as patients, clients, students or users, towards a worker,» describes Álvaro San Martín, a partner of Labor of the Casadeley Firm, who recalls that the damages must be accreditable. «Harassment is not manifested only by isolated actions, but several jointly occurs,» says Mario Barros, director of the Uría Menéndez work area. «The existence of a behavior pattern and a certain persistence over time is necessary,» he insists. In addition, behaviors must have a sufficient level of gravity. Beyond verbal aggressions, psychological mobbing is characterized by a constant and systematic attack on the emotional sphere of the working person through hostile behaviors that seek to cause damage. «We can find actions aimed at social or professional isolation, exclude meetings, reduce your workload or not to participate in projects of the department itself. Also behaviors aimed at creating mental confusion and insecurity, such as giving contradictory orders, interruptions or infused constant corrections and situations of devaluation and the psychological manipulation of the working person,» says Blanca Liñán, partner in the work area of CECA Magán. In the face to try it, there are two goals. The first is to demonstrate, for example through witnesses, that these hostile behaviors have occurred. «Most of the tests are testimony, although taking a co-worker to a trial can be complicated. You have to try to record the facts in writing, that the worker sends an email informing the company and action the internal anti-corns protocol,» explains Luis Jiménez-Arlarlano, responsible for the work area of the Mas and Calvet. It is also recommended to provide audiovisual material, recording of telephone or meetings conversations, emails or messages by WhatsApp or Teams in which this behavior is reflected. Of course, your obtaining must respect the data protection regulations. Secondly, the psychological damage must be proven with an expert medical report or public health services and it is very useful for the optional to ratify it before the judge. The assessment of the damage caused to the employee will help set compensation.
Prevention
Going to internal channels to denounce bad practices before going to court is not a requirement. Although they are not mandatory, Luis Jiménez-Arellano recommends using them and remembers that all companies, including SMEs, must have an anti-corn protocol. «If the worker does not agree with the conclusion of internal organizations, he may go to social jurisdiction,» he warns. But those affected may feel distrust of how the businessman will act, especially if who harasses him accumulates a high degree of power. Faced with this, the company can also activate mechanisms with more guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, for example, through an external commission. «The best solution is to order the management and instruction of investigations to an independent third party,» says Blanca Liñán. The personnel delegates and the legal representatives of the workers should also exercise a key role in a complaint. But reality shows that in many companies it is a blind eye and the ethical codes that prohibit mobbing and other bad practices are kept in a drawer. However, the law says they cannot look elsewhere. «Labor and occupational risk prevention regulations forces them to take the necessary measures to protect workers from work risks, which include moral harassment,» corroborates Mario Barros. These protocols usually protect relevant collaborators such as suppliers, contractors, external personnel and even customers. If the company remains passive, it could have to assume administrative sanctions of up to 500,000 euros when mobbing is linked to some discriminatory reason, Blanca Liñán details. If you choose not to activate the protection indicated by the Workers' Statute, your responsibility can be even broader. «It would be civilly and criminally co -author of the legal consequences that would generate the behaviors carried out in their business environment. These would be quantified according to objective data and can become considerable gravity not only at an economic level, but also criminal,» says Álvaro San Martín. It could also have to pay numerous compensation to the worker if determined by the judge. The conclusion seems clear: there is no corporate reputation or employer brand that is worth it if workplace harassment is not stopped in practice.
Precedents and guarantees
There is abundant jurisprudence about various cases of workplace harassment. The Supreme Court concluded on January 15 that the header from one employee to another did not have this consideration and that the company could not take extra measures because there were not previous episodes, but emphasizes: the employer cannot remain impassive if there are precedents. In addition, protocols must be solid for all parties. The Court of Justice of the European Union annulled on March 12 the sanction to a Eurodiputada accused of moral harassment because the protocol did not guarantee its right of defense.
