Labor Court Siegburg, 11.10.2012, Case No.: 1 Ca 1310/12
The term „bullying“ (Mobbing) is increasingly becoming a topic in both out-of-court and judicial disputes in today’s working world.
The Federal Labor Court defines bullying as the systematic hostility, harassment, or discrimination of employees by one another or by supervisors.
Bullying is often exacerbated by stressful situations in the workplace, which may arise due to over- or under-demanding work tasks for individual employees or employee groups, issues in work organization, or the behavior of supervisors.
Identifying bullying, assessing the credibility of those affected, and distinguishing it from socially accepted behavior in the workplace pose significant challenges.
The documentation of bullying by the employee through a so-called bullying diary represents an additional burden for affected employees, but it is absolutely necessary.
The case mentioned above, from the Labor Court of Siegburg, is particularly suitable for illustrating how an employee’s personal rights can be violated through systematic discrimination via seemingly insignificant actions.
Facts of the Court Case
The plaintiff, an industrial clerk born in 1950, had been employed by an information technology company since 1992. Despite a 30% disability, he worked as a department head for software services until 2005. After a restructuring, he took on the role of a task manager, where he was required to handle daily performance accounting. As early as 2006, the plaintiff repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of workload and requested additional tasks. After unsuccessful severance negotiations in 2009, disputes between the plaintiff and his employer arose, leading to various conflicts.
Disputes and Bullying Allegations
After the severance negotiations failed, the employer allegedly began to systematically harass the plaintiff. Starting in 2010, the plaintiff was required to submit detailed daily reports. Additionally, his vacation request in 2010 was denied, although he had coordinated his vacation plans early with colleagues. In contrast, a colleague’s vacation request was approved. The plaintiff was later assigned to sort IT scrap, a task he found degrading as it did not match his qualifications. He was also assigned an inferior workstation, and further humiliating incidents occurred, such as being instructed to clean the toilet after use.
Health Consequences and Reintegration Attempts
During the disputes, the plaintiff developed moderate depression and participated in a rehabilitation program. A subsequent request for recuperative leave was denied by the employer, prompting the plaintiff to obtain a court injunction to continue his recovery. Upon returning to work, the plaintiff found his workstation occupied by a trainee, and he was assigned to an inferior workstation. Several attempts at reintegration failed, partly because the plaintiff was given tasks that did not align with his former responsibilities, which he perceived as degrading.
Claim for Compensation and Court Decision
The plaintiff eventually filed a lawsuit with the Labor Court in Siegburg, seeking compensation for pain and suffering due to a violation of his personal rights. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the employer’s actions constituted a systematic violation of the plaintiff’s personal rights. The employer had deliberately underutilized the plaintiff and marginalized him through degrading tasks, such as sorting IT scrap. The handling of the vacation request and the assignment of an inferior workstation were also considered hostile actions. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation.
Rationale for the Judgment
The court found that the employer had violated its contractual duty of care. Not only had the employer limited the plaintiff’s ability to work, but through continued humiliations, it had also infringed upon the plaintiff’s general personal rights. The instruction to sort IT scrap was particularly viewed as part of a systematic campaign of bullying aimed at degrading the plaintiff. The denial of recuperative leave and the insensitive handling of health issues exacerbated the situation. Taken together, the court recognized the employer’s actions as a deliberate violation of the plaintiff’s personal rights, justifying compensation in the form of damages.
Source: Labor Court Siegburg
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.