“That’s Just the Culture Here”: Where to Draw the Line Between Workplace Specificity and Mobbing

Matylda is the HR Director at a well known discount retail chain. It is a massive organization where, alongside the head office, an extensive network of distribution centers and warehouses operates across Poland.

Recently, the HR Manager responsible for blue collar personnel the team handling goods unloading and warehouse operations in Warsaw came into Matylda’s office, visibly concerned.

“Matylda, I have an issue with one of our employees,” she began without preamble, going on to share the story of a newly hired young warehouse worker.

The worker had been with the company for just a month before filing a formal mobbing complaint. In it, he stated that he found the team’s communication culture completely unacceptable. He complained that workers on his shift swore as a matter of routine, and when he pointed out their vulgar language, they retaliated by no longer inviting him to join them on breaks.

The new employee had previously spoken with the local HR team. However, all he got was the classic line: “Well, that’s just how it is around here. A warehouse isn’t a symphony hall you need to get used to it.”

The worker didn’t get used to it. He submitted his resignation, declaring that the workplace atmosphere had ruined his mental health, and announced plans to sue the company for mobbing.

“And yet I honestly explained to him that it’s simply that kind of environment and there’s nothing we can do about it. I can’t change the habits of dozens of warehouse workers overnight…”

A Warehouse Isn’t a Symphony Hall. But Does That Mean Anything Goes?

It is no secret that different professional groups and work environments have their own norms and communicate in distinct ways.

No one expects warehouse or production line employees to wear ties and speak in refined language. To some extent, it is natural that in a dynamic, physical work environment, communication tends to be more direct, and the language used a bit less polished than in an office setting.

And that is fine. Every company has the right to set its own cultural standards and tolerate a certain degree of expression appropriate to specific roles—with one crucial condition: these standards and expressions must not violate anyone’s dignity.

It is therefore essential to distinguish between two scenarios:

1. Unpolished, non-targeted behavior: Behavior that is unpolished but not directed at a specific individual and does not in itself violate anyone’s dignity. For example, when a common swear word is used as a verbal comma in the warehouse, or a loud curse word lets off steam when heavy cargo slips off a pallet. The language is colloquial, rough, and leaves much to be desired in terms of etiquette, but no one is being attacked, insulted, or demeaned by it.
2. Targeted hostility and bullying: Profanity or spiteful remarks directed straight at a specific person—when employees mock someone’s appearance or personal traits, use offensive nicknames, publicly humiliate, or intentionally isolate a team member. In those situations, hiding behind industry specificity or a “tough environment” is completely unacceptable.

What If the Behavior Is Objectively Within Bounds, But Still Bothers Someone?

Suppose Matylda’s story had a follow up.

An internal investigation was conducted, confirming that warehouse employees did indeed use profanity. They also swore in the presence of the new hire. However, they did so in conversations among themselves, without directing any vulgarities at their new colleague. The employee simply objected to this style of communication on principle.

In this situation, should the company conclude that the team violated the new employee’s dignity and discipline the rest of the warehouse crew?

Not necessarily. Assessing these situations requires looking beyond the employee’s subjective feelings. This is not about invalidating their perspective, but rather considering how the behavior in question would be perceived by a person of average sensitivity and mental resilience in similar circumstances.

Would the mere fact that colleagues use swear words to describe a forklift malfunction cause psychological trauma to an individual of standard sensitivity? Objectively speaking, no. If the employee’s reaction stems from past personal trauma, individual personality traits, or unrealistic workplace expectations, the employer has a strong defense in a potential court case.

In this context, courts apply the so-called “reasonable victim” standard. The goal is to distinguish genuine harassment or infringement of employee rights from situations where the sense of harm arises from individual hypersensitivity.

“When evaluating behavior alleged to constitute mobbing, it is necessary to apply the objective benchmark of a ‘reasonable victim’ to exclude cases arising from an employee’s hypersensitivity. Examining and assessing the subjective feelings of the targeted individual cannot serve as the sole basis for establishing liability for mobbing.” — Supreme Court Ruling of Feb 22, 2023, case ref. I PSKP 8/22

The same principle applies to office environments. If an administrative employee complains about a manager with a blunt demeanor whose feedback is dry and firm, it is worth examining the specific statements and circumstances. Simply disliking a manager’s communication style does not automatically amount to mobbing. Naturally, if “firm feedback” is used as a cover for regular humiliation, ridicule, or undermining an employee’s competence, it cannot be excused by the manager’s “difficult personality.”

“That’s Just How It Is” Is Not an Anti-Mobbing Strategy

The boundary between “unpolished” communication and dignity violating behavior is not always clear cut. For this reason, companies should neither automatically validate every complaint as mobbing nor dismiss it outright under the guise of workplace culture without proper analysis.

Even if an investigation reveals that team communication is merely rough and individual behaviors do not cross legal boundaries, employers should still educate staff and progressively improve workplace standards.

This is particularly vital under current anti mobbing regulations, which emphasize proactive prevention and ongoing risk management. Under this framework, maintaining an active, effective anti-mobbing system significantly strengthens an employer’s legal position in court disputes. What matters most is whether and how the company acted to prevent and address misconduct.

For blue collar environments, this presents a unique operational challenge. You can hardly shut down an entire warehouse, pause the supply chain, and send everyone to a multi hour classroom training session on communication.

However, there are other flexible ways to implement preventive measures that work exceptionally well for companies with multiple field and manufacturing sites. We roll out these exact solutions for our clients who need their employees to be able to complete training and access anti-mobbing resources on demand, at any time. If you’re looking for solutions like these, feel free to get in touch with us.

Key Takeaways:

1. Limits of Culture: Workplace specificity may justify a more direct, colloquial tone, but it never excuses insulting, humiliating, or isolating colleagues.
2. Context Matters: Not every instance of swearing or unpolished communication constitutes mobbing or a violation of dignity. Target, intent, and context are decisive.
3. Objective Standard: Assessments must weigh not only the employee’s subjective feelings, but also how a person of average sensitivity and mental resilience would perceive the behavior under similar circumstances.
4. Active Prevention Required: Modern regulations require employers to take systematic preventive action, detect misconduct, and respond appropriately. A written policy alone is insufficient—active practice is what counts.