Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court distinguishes between mobbing and employer’s exercise of rights regarding organization and remuneration of labour

Actions by an employer to change an employee’s workplace, position, or amount of remuneration, carried out in accordance with the procedure established by labour legislation, collective or individual employment contract, do not constitute mobbing (bullying). The employee’s disagreement with such decisions by the employer does not, by itself, indicate systematic psychological or economic pressure aimed at humiliating the employee’s honour, dignity, or business reputation.

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

In the case under review, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking 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), the deterioration of working conditions, and the reduction of payments were of a mobbing nature, as they created a hostile and humiliating atmosphere toward her.

The courts refused to satisfy the claim, noting that the plaintiff had not proven the validity of her claims. The facts she presented as evidence of mobbing were based precisely on her disagreement with the employer’s actions and decisions, but did not indicate any restriction of her rights and freedoms.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, leaving the plaintiff’s cassation appeal unsatisfied and the challenged court decisions unchanged, reached the following legal conclusions.

Article 2-2 of the Labour Code of Ukraine provides the definition of mobbing (bullying) and its elements.

According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, a three-step test is used to clarify the circumstances of discrimination in a specific situation: first, identifying two categories of persons who are comparable and different, since under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms discrimination implies a person’s belonging to a particular group; second, establishing whether members of these two groups are indeed treated differently; and third, if so, whether there are objective and reasonable grounds for such treatment.

The fact of discrimination can only be established when the difference in treatment of a person is motivated by a specific personal characteristic inherent to that person.

The courts of previous instances reached well-founded conclusions that the plaintiff had failed to prove her claims, namely that the employer had committed discriminatory actions and mobbing against her.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court emphasised that a change of workplace, position, or amount of remuneration, carried out in accordance with the procedure established by law, collective agreement or employment contract, does not constitute mobbing. At the same time, the establishment of allowances and bonuses is a right, not an obligation, of the manager. Since these are payments of an individual nature, their amount depends on the employee’s personal contribution; therefore, any difference in the amounts of incentives does not constitute evidence of pressure on the employee.

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court noted that proving the fact of mobbing cannot be based on assumptions. The plaintiff did not provide evidence that the management acted with the specific aim of humiliating her dignity, nor that its actions were not part of the ordinary organisation of work.

The cassation court found the plaintiff’s arguments regarding the taking into account of her dismissals in 2018 and 2020 as evidence of systematic mobbing to be unfounded. This is because the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Preventing and Countering Mobbing (Bullying)” entered into force only in 2022 and, in accordance with Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, has no retroactive effect in time.

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

Thus, the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court confirmed that, for the purpose of establishing the fact of bullying, only those actions of the employer that were committed after the entry into force of the relevant law have legal significance. This makes it impossible to conduct a retrospective analysis of previous labour conflicts under the new legal norms.

Resolution of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 29 April 2026 in case No. 756/12586/24 (proceedings 61-12878sv25) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/136197169.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.