The Supreme Court Set the Boundary Between Mobbing and Personnel Management

Actions by the employer regarding changes in the workplace, position, or salary made in accordance with labor legislation, collective or employment agreements, are not considered mobbing (harassment). An employee's disagreement with such employer decisions alone does not indicate systematic psychological or economic pressure aimed at humiliating their honor, dignity, or business reputation.

These conclusions were reached by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court.

In the reviewed case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to establish the fact of mobbing by the employer. She believed that the employer's systematic actions aimed at her dismissal (after each dismissal, the plaintiff was reinstated by court decisions), worsening working conditions, and reducing payments constituted mobbing, as they created a hostile and humiliating atmosphere towards her.

The courts denied the claim, referring to the fact that the plaintiff did not prove the validity of her claims. The facts she associated with mobbing were based solely on her disagreement with the employer's actions and decisions, but did not indicate restrictions on her rights and freedoms.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, leaving the plaintiff's cassation appeal unsatisfied and the contested court decisions unchanged, made the following legal conclusions.

Article 2-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine provides the definition of mobbing (harassment) and its components.

According to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, a three-step test is applied to clarify the circumstances of discrimination in a specific situation: first, identifying two categories of persons who are comparable and different, since according to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, discrimination implies belonging to a certain group; second, establishing whether members of these two groups are indeed treated differently; and third, if so, whether there are objective, justified reasons for this.

The fact of discrimination can only be established if the distinction in treatment is motivated by a certain personal characteristic inherent to the individual.

The lower courts reasonably concluded that the plaintiff did not prove her claims, namely that the employer committed discriminatory actions and mobbing against her.

The Supreme Court of Cassation emphasized that changing the workplace, position, or salary in accordance with legislation, collective, or employment agreements is not considered mobbing. At the same time, granting bonuses and premiums is a right, not an obligation of the manager. Since these are individual payments, their amount depends on the employee's personal contribution, so differences in incentive amounts are not evidence of pressure on the employee.

The Supreme Court of Cassation noted that proving mobbing cannot be based on assumptions. The plaintiff did not provide evidence that the management acted with the purpose of humiliating her dignity, and their actions were not part of normal labor organization.

The cassation court found the plaintiff's arguments regarding her dismissals in 2018 and 2020 as evidence of systematic mobbing to be unfounded, since the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding Prevention and Counteraction to Mobbing (Harassment)" came into force only in 2022 and, according to Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, does not have retroactive effect.

Since the effect of a normative legal act cannot extend to legal relations that arose and ended before it came into force, the plaintiff's previous dismissals cannot be qualified as elements of mobbing under Article 2-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.

Thus, the Supreme Court of Cassation confirmed that for establishing the fact of harassment, only those employer actions committed after the relevant law came into effect have legal significance, which excludes retrospective analysis of previous labor conflicts under new legal norms.

Resolution of the Supreme Court of Cassation dated April 29, 2026, in case No. 756/12586/24 (proceeding 61-12878sv25).

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.