The employer is not always the perpetrator of mobbing. The employer’s responsibility for the actions of other people results from the employer’s breach of the obligationto counter mobbing (Article 943 § 1 of the Labour Code). Certainly, mobbing is a negative, undesirable phenomenon, and the interpretation of regulations shaping the employer’s responsibility for the effects of mobbing should take into account the aim of completely eliminating this phenomenon from the work environment. Precisely because of this aim, it is vital to discuss in broader terms, from the perspective of art. 943 of the Labor Code, the position expressed by the European Court of Human Rights in the justification of the judgment of November 6, 2018 (Vicent Del Campo v. Spain, no. 25527/13), which emphasized that the personal data of an employee who was not a party to court proceedings, with the indication that this employee committed acts of psychological harassment of another employee, constitutes a violation of the right of the perpetrator of these acts to respect his private life.

Mobbing is a phenomenon which has existed since employment relationships were established in business life. But this issue has been taken into consideration as a legal problem only relatively recently. Thus, within the scope of our work, the definition of mobbing shall be clarified. Moreover, Turkish legislation and judicial opinion regarding mobbing will be analysed.

Discrimination of employees who, apart from their professional duties, perform also parental duties, remains highly exceptionable. Professional life, as well as family life, constitute the most important spheres of a person’s life, inextricably connected and interdependent, but also highly competitive. The protection of such a parent-employee should entail not only granting them appropriate privileges, but also creating effective countermeasures (legal, extralegal) against discrimination. If being granted numerous privileges becomes the source of unequal treatment, then what occurs is unsanctioned discrimination on account of being a parent. The life choice of becoming a parent, and consequently, the fulfillment of related duties can have substantial impact on the employee’s treatment and position in their professional environment, and thus should be, de lege ferenda, included in the rules as a forbidden differentiation criterion. However, such protection against discrimination should encompass not only the current, but also prospective and former employees. The legislator has created several possibilities for the parent-employee to utilize in case of discrimination, such as immediate resignation with no notice (though not applicable in all cases) or compensatory measures, though these are by no means sufficient when it comes to real, actual protection from discrimination. Such protection from discrimination against parent-employees will not be comprehensive if it remains restricted only to the Employment Code solutions. Without specific solutions with regard to obligatory introduction of appropriate antidiscrimination policies by the employers, it will be impossible to guarantee full and effective protection measures. However, in order to be able to implement the protective solutions delineated by the Code, they should first be regulated so that there remains no question of their legal character as well as scope. Therefore, a change in the already functioning regulations is necessary.

The aim of the article is to analyze the Spanish labour law reforms adopted in a period of 10 years and their impact in terms of increasing or decreasing employment precariousness; particularly, in terms of increasing or decreasing labour instability through the promotion of atypical forms of work. The paper concludes that the legislative efforts aimed at promoting permanent employment mainly through reductions on Social Security contributions on behalf of the employer have been offset with other reforms that promote and favour atypical forms of work, such as fixed-term, training, internship, part-time contracts, and self-employment. As a result, atypical forms of work have significantly increased and become flexible forms of work, thus, increasing labour instability.

The subject of this paper is the analysis of the legal liability for mobbing. The article presents remarks on the legal nature, the grounds and the scope of legal liability for mobbing. The starting point for the conducted considerations is the question whether the legal regulation contained in art. 943 of the Employment Code is of comprehensive nature. The analysis conducted in this scope allowed the determination of the role of the Civil Code regulations in claiming compensation and damages for mobbing. This paper also comments on the latest novelization of art. 943 § 4
E. C., which was introduced into the Employment Code through the act of 16 May 2019 on alteration of act – Employment Code and some other acts (Journal of Laws 2019 item 1043). The conducted considerations became the grounds for formulating a proposal de lege ferenda.

Specific labor law encompasses staff regulations in the public sphere, understood as the public sector of employment (at the national and local level), which includes entities of the public finance sector enumerated in art. 9 of the Act on Public Finance. The employers acting in this sphere have a different administrative status as well as certain administrative freedom in relation to the authorities that form them. The public sector, thanks to a highly developed bureaucratic apparatus as well as a strictly hierarchical structure in the ranks, constitutes a highly fertile ground for mobbing, which negatively affects not only the people who work there but also their families, clients and the whole society. In the public sector, the rules of creating particular administrative entities which serve as employers, their transformations and liquidations, as well as the filling of managerial positions are much more rigid. People who engage in authoritarian mobbing fare very well in the public sector, where issues such as promotions, pay rises, bonuses and prestigious tasks are entirely subjective and ultimately in their immediate superior’s purview. Nonetheless, according to art. 943 § 2 E. C., such harassment or intimidation must be persistent and particularly disruptive to be classified as mobbing.