A Practical 2026 Guide to Workplace Harassment and Mobbing
Area: Employment law and senior management
Reader: affected employee / company
Sources reviewed: Law 31/1995 on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, the Workers’ Statute and the Criminal Code
This guide covers what mobbing actually is and what falls outside that category, the different types of conduct it can take, how it is proven in practice, and what legal routes exist to respond, whether you are the affected employee or you run a company that needs to handle an internal complaint with proper safeguards. The aim is not to alarm or dramatise a situation that already causes emotional strain, but to offer a clear roadmap of what to do and in what order.
Workplace harassment affects the physical and psychological health of the person who suffers it, and it also creates significant legal and reputational risk for organisations that fail to prevent it or mishandle it once it appears. Both perspectives — the employee’s and the company’s — share the same starting point: understanding precisely which conduct meets the legal definition of mobbing and which, however harsh, does not.
In Spain, the reference framework for preventing these risks is Law 31/1995 on the Prevention of Occupational Risks, which requires companies to also assess and prevent psychosocial risks. Building on that legal basis, and on the case law that has consolidated over recent years, it is possible to map out a reasonably clear course of action when harassment is suspected.
What workplace harassment is, and what it isn’t
Mobbing consists of hostile conduct, pressure or psychological violence exercised in a systematic manner over a prolonged period against an employee, with the aim or effect of violating their dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment around them. This definition, the one used by Spanish courts, has three elements worth separating clearly, because they mark the difference between an ordinary workplace conflict and a harassment situation.
The first element is systematic recurrence: this is not an isolated incident, however unpleasant, but conduct repeated over time. The second is intent or harmful effect: the conduct seeks (or produces, even without being expressly intended) harm to the person’s dignity and psychological health. The third is the power imbalance between the person carrying out the conduct and the person suffering it, which is usually hierarchical, although the law and the courts also recognise harassment between colleagues at the same level.
That is why not every friction at work amounts to mobbing. A legitimate performance demand, an unfavourable performance review, a one-off disagreement with a manager, or even a reorganisation of duties that the employee finds uncomfortable are not, on their own, workplace harassment. The key lies in distinguishing the normal — if at times tough — exercise of managerial authority from a sustained strategy of hostile conduct. This is precisely the distinction explored in detail by specialists in conflicts and mobbing in senior management and among key personnel, where power dynamics tend to be more complex to analyse.
Conflating the two has consequences both ways: an employee who reports as harassment what is in fact a legitimate demand may see their claim dismissed and lose credibility; and a company that dismisses as “a bad atmosphere” what is in fact systematic hostile conduct exposes itself to significant liability, both civil and, in the most serious cases, criminal.
Types of mobbing and the conduct that constitutes it
Legal doctrine and judicial practice distinguish mobbing according to the hierarchical relationship between the person harassing and the person harassed. The most common is descending vertical harassment, exercised by a manager over a subordinate: social isolation, assignment of degrading or meaningless tasks, systematic and disproportionate criticism, being sidelined in meetings, exclusion from the information needed to do the job, or excessive monitoring and control.
There is also ascending vertical harassment, less common but entirely possible, in which a group of subordinates harasses their manager, typically to force them out or undermine their authority. And horizontal harassment, which occurs between colleagues at the same hierarchical level, often fuelled by rivalry, professional envy or group dynamics that isolate a particular person.
Beyond who carries out the conduct, it is also worth distinguishing the motive. Strategic harassment pursues a specific goal: forcing a voluntary resignation, an agreed termination, or a dismissal, usually to avoid the cost of a formal dismissal or to replace the person without taking on liability. Harassment stemming from a dysfunctional management style, on the other hand, does not necessarily aim to push anyone out, but arises from a way of managing teams based on fear, public humiliation or excessive control, which ends up causing the same harm even without that intent to remove the person.
Among the most common types of conduct that courts have identified as indicators of mobbing are: suddenly assigning tasks below the employee’s qualifications (or, conversely, unattainable objectives), deliberate isolation from the rest of the team, spreading rumours or criticism aimed at discrediting someone professionally, systematically denying leave or training without objective justification, and disproportionate monitoring of daily activity.
The National Institute for Safety and Health at Work includes precisely these psychosocial risks within its technical assessment criteria, a useful reference framework for both employees and company prevention departments. It is worth remembering that sexual harassment and harassment on grounds of sex, while subject to their own framework of analysis, share with mobbing the requirement of an internal prevention and response protocol, which any reasonably organised company should have in place under Law 31/1995.
How to prove it: indicators, documentation and witnesses
One of the greatest difficulties with workplace harassment is that direct proof is rare: no one confesses to trying to harass another person, and harassing conduct tends to occur without direct witnesses or in a subtle form, disguised as apparently legitimate organisational decisions. That is why both case law and the practice of the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate accept what is known as circumstantial evidence: a set of elements which, without any single one proving harassment on its own, together allow it to be reasonably inferred.
Among the most relevant indicators worth gathering are emails and messages (including those from corporate messaging apps) that reflect the treatment received, witnesses — colleagues who have witnessed specific incidents or who can describe the change in how the affected person was treated —, medical or psychological reports confirming the impact on health, sick leave certificates that align in time with the harassment episodes, and any reports from the Labour Inspectorate itself if proceedings have already begun.
The procedural rule applied once these indicators are presented is particularly important: it is not the employee who must fully prove that harassment occurred; rather, once reasonable indicators have been presented, it falls to the company to show that its actions had an objective justification unrelated to any intent to harass. This reversal of the burden of proof, typical of proceedings involving the violation of fundamental rights, is one of the reasons why documenting from the very start matters so much: the more reasonable indicators presented, the harder it becomes for the company to objectively justify each disputed decision.
In practice, this means keeping a record with date, time, place, people present and the exact content of each relevant incident, kept outside the work environment (not only in the corporate email account, which the company can block at any time). It is also advisable to seek medical attention, whether through primary care or the company’s occupational risk prevention services, so there is a medical record of the health impact from an early stage.
Claim routes: company, Inspectorate, courts and criminal proceedings
There are several routes, not necessarily mutually exclusive, for responding to a workplace harassment situation. The first, and the most immediate where available, is an internal complaint to the company through its harassment protocol, if the organisation has one in place in line with its obligations under Law 31/1995. A well-designed protocol should guarantee confidentiality, an impartial investigation process and precautionary measures while the process is ongoing.
The second route is filing a complaint with the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate, which can open proceedings on its own initiative, request documentation from the company, interview the parties involved and, if it finds evidence of an infringement, issue a formal report, which can also serve as significant evidence in any subsequent court proceedings.
| Route | What it allows |
|---|---|
| Internal complaint | Triggers the company’s protocol, with investigation and precautionary measures. |
| Labour Inspectorate | Proceedings on its own initiative, requirements and a report with evidentiary value. |
| Labour court | Compensation for moral damages and termination of the contract with compensation. |
| Criminal proceedings | Offence against moral integrity in especially serious cases. |
The third route is a claim before the labour court, usually on grounds of a violation of fundamental rights (dignity and moral integrity), a procedure that allows the employee to claim compensation for moral damages and, when the employee chooses not to remain with the company, to request termination of the contract at the employee’s own initiative with compensation under Article 50 of the Workers’ Statute, with compensation equivalent to that of an unfair dismissal. This route requires careful preparation of the circumstantial evidence described in the previous section, since the outcome of the proceedings largely depends on it.
When the conduct is especially serious, criminal proceedings are also available, through the offence against moral integrity set out in Article 173 of the Criminal Code, which provides for prison sentences for those who, taking advantage of an employment relationship, subject another person to degrading treatment that seriously undermines their moral integrity. This route is usually reserved for the most severe or repeated cases, and can be pursued alongside a claim in the labour courts. A combined analysis of both routes, civil and criminal, is especially relevant in litigation and legal defence for executives and key personnel, whose position and exposure tend to differ from those of an operational role.
Common mistakes when filing or handling a complaint
The most common mistake, made both by the person suffering the harassment and by the company that has to handle it, is failing to document incidents as they happen. It is common to wait until the situation worsens, or even until it becomes unbearable, before starting to gather evidence, when in reality the value of an email, a message or a note multiplies if it is kept from the moment the incident occurs, with a clear date and context.
Closely related is the mistake of waiting too long before acting. The more time that passes between the harassment episodes and the claim, the more the temporal link between the events and the alleged harm weakens, giving the company (or the defence in court proceedings) grounds to question whether the two are actually connected.
Another common mistake, this time more substantive, is failing to see a doctor or occupational risk prevention service to record the impact on health. Without that medical backing, it becomes much harder to argue before a court that the reported conduct has had a real and measurable effect on the wellbeing of the affected person.
On the company’s side, the costliest mistake is handling the complaint without a protocol or safeguards: investigating in an improvised way, failing to physically separate the parties during the investigation, leaking information about the complaint to the rest of the staff, or adopting an automatic defensive stance that dismisses the complainant’s account from the outset. All of this not only harms the affected person, but can increase the company’s own liability if the case ends up in court, by demonstrating a lack of diligence in preventing and managing the psychosocial risk that Law 31/1995 requires.
How GraciaCalbet Can Help You
Every workplace harassment situation has its own nuances: the position of an employee with standard protection is not the same as that of an executive or a member of key personnel, where the contractual clauses, relative position of power and interests at stake are different. A rigorous legal analysis, tailored to those specific circumstances, is the first step in deciding which claim route makes most sense and which evidence needs to be reinforced before taking any formal action.
At GraciaCalbet we have spent more than 45 years supporting both employees and companies in managing conflicts and mobbing situations, from the initial assessment of available indicators through to representation in whichever proceedings apply, whether before the Labour Inspectorate, the labour court or, where the seriousness of the facts justifies it, criminal proceedings. If your situation involves senior management or affects key personnel within the organisation, we also have specific experience in litigation and legal defence for that type of profile.
If you are going through a situation like this, or if you run a company that needs to put in place or review its harassment prevention protocol, we recommend getting in touch with our team to assess your case with the discretion and rigour these matters require.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What exactly is mobbing, and how is it different from a bad work atmosphere?+
Mobbing is systematic, sustained psychological harassment directed at a specific person, which seeks or produces a violation of their dignity and creates a hostile or degrading environment. A generally poor work atmosphere, by contrast, is not usually directed at a particular person and does not involve that specific intent or harmful effect. The key difference lies in the systematic nature of the conduct, the power imbalance between the parties and the existence of identifiable harm to the affected person’s dignity or health, not simply the discomfort of working in a tense environment.
How is workplace harassment reported in practice?+
There are several routes that can be combined depending on the case: an internal complaint to the company through its harassment protocol (if one exists), a complaint to the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate, which can open proceedings on its own initiative, and a claim before the labour court for violation of fundamental rights. In the most serious cases, criminal proceedings are also an option. It is advisable to start by gathering the available documentation and evidence and to assess, with specialist advice, which route or combination of routes is most appropriate before taking any formal action.
What evidence actually proves workplace harassment?+
Since direct proof is usually unavailable, the most effective approach is circumstantial evidence: emails and messages reflecting the treatment received, witnesses who saw the incidents or the change in treatment, medical or psychological reports confirming the impact on health, sick leave certificates that align in time with the events, and reports from the Labour Inspectorate if proceedings have already started. The more consistent, contemporaneous indicators presented, the stronger the claimant’s position, because once those indicators are presented, it falls to the company to objectively justify its decisions.
What compensation can be claimed for workplace harassment?+
Compensation depends on the circumstances of each case, but it is usually built around moral damages arising from the violation of fundamental rights, the amount of which the court assesses based on the severity, duration and intensity of the harassment suffered. In addition, if the employee chooses to terminate their contract under Article 50 of the Workers’ Statute, they are entitled to compensation equivalent to that of an unfair dismissal, on top of the amount for moral damages. There is no fixed figure: each claim is assessed based on the evidence provided and the specific circumstances of the case.
Can workplace harassment happen between colleagues at the same level, without a manager involved?+
Yes. Although descending vertical harassment, exercised by a manager over a subordinate, is the most common and most studied, horizontal harassment between colleagues at the same hierarchical level is recognised by both legal doctrine and the courts. It usually stems from rivalry, professional competition or group dynamics that isolate a particular person, and requires the same analysis of systematic conduct, intent or harmful effect, and circumstantial evidence as vertical harassment, although the lack of formal hierarchy between the parties does not reduce its seriousness or the company’s responsibility to prevent and manage it.
What should a company do when it receives an internal harassment complaint?+
The first step is to activate the harassment prevention and response protocol if one is in place, guaranteeing confidentiality for both parties during the investigation. It is advisable to adopt precautionary measures to avoid unnecessary contact between the complainant and the accused while the process is ongoing, carry out an impartial investigation that gathers accounts from both parties and any available witnesses, and document the entire procedure. Handling the complaint without a protocol, in an improvised way, or with an automatic defensive stance towards the accused can increase the company’s liability if the case ends up in court.
Is there a deadline for reporting workplace harassment?+
There is no single deadline that applies to all routes: a complaint to the Labour Inspectorate can be filed while the situation persists or has persisted recently, while a court claim for violation of fundamental rights is subject to the limitation periods applicable to the chosen route, which is worth assessing case by case with specialist advice. What matters more than the formal deadline is acting as soon as possible: waiting too long weakens the link between the reported events and the alleged harm, and makes it harder to gather quality evidence.
What is the difference between workplace harassment and sexual harassment at work?+
Both share the requirement of systematic conduct, harm to the person’s dignity, and the company’s obligation to prevent them through specific protocols under Law 31/1995 on the Prevention of Occupational Risks. However, sexual harassment centres on unwanted conduct of a sexual nature or connotation, while mobbing covers a broader spectrum of psychological hostility that is not necessarily sexual. In practice, both types of harassment can coexist in the same case, and the analysis of evidence and indicators follows a similar logic, although the specific regulatory framework and applicable protocols are not identical.
You can consult the full text of the law at the Official State Gazette (BOE), review the technical assessment criteria at the National Institute for Safety and Health at Work, and check the complaint route at the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate.
