Bullying on the ward or a strict supervisor? How to tell the difference

What changed in the definition of mobbing in November 2026

A resident doctor tells a colleague: “The head of department said in front of everyone again that I’m not cut out for this profession.” The supervisor responds: “In a hospital I have to set high standards. It’s about patient safety.” Both statements concern important matters, but they do not yet make it possible to establish what happened and how often. What is needed is a description of specific behaviours and their context. High standards do not justify humiliation, and not all criticism is harassment.

Since 5 November 2026, the amended Article 94³ of the Labour Code has been in force. The definition of mobbing is based on the persistent harassment of an employee, which may take physical, verbal or non-verbal forms. What matters is that it is recurring, repeated or continuous. The provisions list, among other things, persistent humiliation, intimidation, ridicule, isolation and obstructing someone’s work. It is no longer necessary to prove a specific intention on the part of the perpetrator, or a specific effect, in order to assess behaviour under this definition. A final legal assessment, however, requires the facts to be examined. Simply calling behaviour mobbing does not determine how it is classified.

Criticism is about the work; humiliation targets the person

“An important result is missing from the records. We need to add it and find out why it was left out.” This is a firm message about a task and a standard. It may be uncomfortable, but it remains tied to the patient’s safety. Something like this sounds very different: “You’re hopeless – you should never have been allowed to graduate.” A sentence like that does not explain what needs to be corrected, and it attacks the person’s dignity. Repeated towards them within a particular relationship of dependence, it may be one element of persistent harassment.

A conversation about a mistake should focus on the specific event, its consequences, the improvement expected and how that improvement will be checked. Public reprimands, sarcasm, name-calling or exclusion from training do not become part of professionalism just because an experienced doctor is the one doing it. At the same time, it is not helpful to label every impolite remark as mobbing automatically. A single incident may infringe a person’s rights and personal interests (dobra osobiste) even if it does not meet the statutory criterion of persistence. The hospital should respond to such incidents too, rather than waiting for them to happen again.

Why ward staff hesitate to report humiliation

A consultant or a specialty training supervisor (kierownik specjalizacji) can influence how a resident’s competence is assessed, the scope of their duties, their rota and their opportunities for development. In that kind of relationship, objecting to inappropriate behaviour may be seen as a professional risk. A resident may think: “If I report this now, I’ll get worse on-call shifts or nobody will want to teach me.” There is no way of knowing in advance whether these fears will prove justified. In themselves, however, they can make it harder to talk about the problem.

Research on employee silence, described by Elizabeth Morrison among others, shows how much the fear of the consequences of raising a problem matters. Reviews of research on bullying in medical settings also point to the importance of hierarchy and training dependencies. Percentages from other countries must not be mechanically transferred to Polish wards, nor should it be assumed that every employee who stays silent has experienced mobbing. For management, a different question matters: does the person raising a concern have real access to someone independent of the supervisor the matter concerns? If not, the policy on its own may remain just a document that nobody applies.

How to record incidents so that a report can be investigated

Instead of writing “The head of department is persecuting me”, it is better to describe specific events: “On days X and Y, during the team briefing, the following words were said; the named employees were present; after the incident I did not receive the information I needed to complete the task.” It is worth noting the date, place, exact wording, witnesses, frequency and any consequences you noticed. Separate what you saw and heard from assumptions about the other person’s motives. A description like this allows the facts to be established impartially, and it also guards against jumping to conclusions about guilt.

In a hospital, particular care must also be taken over medical confidentiality. Patient data should not be recorded in private notes, medical records should not be sent to a personal account, and they should not be used as material in a public dispute. If an incident is linked to patient safety, it should also be reported in line with the procedure for risks to patients. That is a separate task from investigating harassment. An employee may need support from a trade union, an employee representative or a lawyer, especially if they do not know how to document the situation without breaching confidentiality.

How to report the matter and what obligations the hospital has

The new provisions place emphasis not only on responding once irregularities have been identified, but also on prevention and clear procedures. An employer with at least ten employees should properly set out rules on preventing, among other things, mobbing, on protecting dignity, and on how violations are reported and dealt with. It can do so in documents already in force or in a separate policy, following the statutory procedure. The deadline for bringing internal documents into line with the new requirements is 5 May 2027. Simply pinning the policy to a noticeboard is no substitute for action.

The person receiving the report should establish the facts, ensure impartiality and protect those involved from retaliation. Ideally, employees should know who handles the matter when it concerns their direct superior, and how they will be kept informed about the next steps. A report does not in itself determine guilt. Both the ability to speak up about a problem and the fairness of the findings towards all parties need protecting. If there is an immediate risk to patients, appropriate safety measures are taken without delay, regardless of how quickly the employment-related proceedings progress.

Employed or on contract: legal protection may differ

In many hospitals, doctors on contracts and under other forms of engagement work alongside staff on employment contracts. The Labour Code provisions on mobbing are tied to employee status as defined in that code. You therefore cannot promise someone working solely under a civil-law contract (umowa cywilnoprawna) the same claims under the same provisions. This does not, however, mean that humiliation is acceptable. Depending on the situation, other provisions and protection mechanisms may apply, and it is worth having them assessed by someone who knows employment law and the specific contract.

An employee experiencing repeated harassment can use the internal reporting channel, seek legal advice and draw on information provided by the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP). The choice of course of action depends on the circumstances. You do not need to wait for a final judgment to report unacceptable treatment or to ensure the safety of people on the ward. Nor should the person who has been harmed be required to confront the perpetrator themselves if that would increase the risk of retaliation. Everyone deserves respect, regardless of the form of employment.

Good ward management requires high standards and specific feedback. It does not require humiliation. Whether something is mobbing is decided by an analysis of persistent harassment in the light of the applicable law, not by how strict a supervisor is. Every report deserves to be checked properly, and behaviour that violates dignity, as well as risks to patients, should be taken seriously regardless of its final legal classification.

How Em helps you prepare for a conversation after reporting a supervisor’s behaviour

A resident wants to report a supervisor’s repeated humiliating remarks but is afraid of sounding too emotional. Before meeting the person who handles reports, he describes the situation to Em without names, patient data or information that could identify those involved. He asks for help separating the sentences he remembers word for word from his own judgements, putting events in chronological order and preparing three factual questions about the procedure. Em helps him put together an opening: “I want to report a series of specific behaviours and find out how they will be investigated.” The person managing the ward, in turn, can practise with Em how to give firm feedback without violating an employee’s dignity, and how to respond to a report without prejudging guilt. This can help them prepare a calm conversation and explain the next steps clearly. The legal assessment of the behaviour and the investigation should be left to the people responsible for such matters and, where necessary, to relevant specialists. Em helps users prepare for these conversations: setting out the facts, framing questions and presenting their position without needlessly escalating the conflict.