Staffing, or when the team bullies management

13.11.2025

Mobbing is a matter explicitly regulated by the Labour Code. Much is said, written, and discussed about it. Employers conduct internal investigations to assess mobbing grievances. Each year, several hundred cases based on mobbing behavior reach the courts.

Staffing, also referred to as reverse mobbing, remains a taboo subject. There is no direct reference to it in the Labour Code. It is difficult to find extensive studies or vibrant discussions on the topic. The number of internal investigations regarding staffing allegations is negligible when compared to the number of mobbing proceedings. Furthermore, in judicial statistics, the category of staffing is not separately identified at all.

Staffing is a taboo subject

Yet staffing represents a serious challenge for organizations. It precludes effective management and the achievement of business objectives.

Let us take a closer look at this phenomenon.

Staffing consists of negative attitudes of subordinates towards their superiors. Resistance to accepting and executing instructions. Polemics and engaging in constant disputes with superiors. Going a step further, even defiance towards superiors. Antagonizing the rest of the team against superiors. „Building a wall” between the team and the management. Permanent „opposition” (criticism) towards the decisions and guidelines of superiors. These can be active measures, but also a passive stance. For instance, through the silent acceptance of orders and their slow execution (akin to a „work-to-rule” strike).

Staffing is a permanent „opposition” towards the decisions and guidelines of superiors

In the long run, leaders will not be able to endure such a state of affairs. Unless the organization itself intervenes, recognizing the threat posed by such a situation in time. In terms of preventive measures, the role of HR is crucial. Especially since leaders may refrain from reporting irregularities even when they become a real problem. The belief is still widespread (even among those affected) that individuals in higher positions are (or at least should be) more resilient.

HR’s vigilance and prevention will stop the situation from escalating to a scale that provides sufficient grounds for legal claims.

What claims? After all, the provisions of the Labour Code say nothing about staffing.

Firstly, every employer is obliged to respect the personal rights of employees [Art. 11(2) of the Labour Code]. All of them, regardless of their position. Leaders also have their dignity. Respecting it is just as important as it is in relation to employees in lower positions.

When an organization fails to demonstrate such respect, it exposes itself to liability. For when a person in a managerial position breaks down under the pressure of staffing phenomena that were or could have been noted by HR, the path to demands (financial and official apologies) will be open.

Leaders have their dignity, which is also legally protected.

Secondly, every employer is obliged to counteract mobbing [Art. 94(3) § 1 of the Labour Code]. Notably, the definition of mobbing [Art. 94(3) § 2 of the Labour Code] does not limit this phenomenon to actions / behaviors directed „downwards,” i.e., from a person higher in the organizational structure to a person in a lower position. To date, the definition of mobbing remains universal and covers actions in all directions. That includes those directed „from the bottom up.” The matter was resolved in 2024 by the Supreme Court, explicitly stating:

This [employer’s liability] applies both to situations where the employer is the mobber themselves, and to situations where the mobber is another employee or a person for whom the employer is responsible, or a person from outside the organization. Any employee, regardless of their position or function within the employer’s structure, can be a victim of mobbing, as mobbing signifies an action or behavior directed against an employee. [Supreme Court judgment of February 13, 2024, case ref. no. II PSKP 29/22].

Thirdly, the interpretation of regulations by the Supreme Court takes into account the specific nature of staffing, which is often its collective character. Mobbing (and thus staffing) can also be a collection of minor, individual behaviors by more than one person, which are neutral in isolation but, when taken together, fall under the criteria of mobbing.

The company should counteract mobbing also towards leaders.

The employer also bears responsibility in a situation where a collective mobber occurs, and we deal with such a case when the individual actions of particular persons do not constitute mobbing (although they constitute a violation of personal rights), yet the sum of individual actions – including even actions independent of each other – fulfills the criteria of mobbing. [Supreme Court judgment of February 13, 2024, case ref. no. II PSKP 29/22].

Fourthly, actions affecting the dignity of any employee in the organization – including a person in a higher position – may fall within the definition of harassment. That is, any unwanted conduct with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of an employee and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive atmosphere [Art. 18(3)a § 5 item 2 of the Labour Code].

When an organization recognizes such behaviors and remains passive towards them, it is equivalent to a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in employment. This, in turn, opens the way for claims from the affected leader.

Fifthly, ensuring proper relations between employees, including „upward” relations, is one of the basic duties of every employer. It falls under the concept of „influencing the shaping of principles of social coexistence in the workplace” [Art. 94 item 10 of the Labour Code]. A breach of this duty, combined with a violation of the leader’s professional dignity, will be a factor contributing to a higher level of employer liability.