dr Sanja Stankov
Introduction to the Issue
The Law on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying defines, regulates, and sanctions workplace bullying. A specific feature of this law lies in the legislator’s requirement to initiate an internal mediation procedure prior to court proceedings, with the aim of resolving disputes in a compromise-oriented manner within the same work environment in which they arose (except in cases where the employer or the responsible person within the employer is accused of bullying). If the law is properly applied and interpreted in line with its purpose, the expected outcome would be more effective prevention of workplace bullying.
The Rulebook on the Rules of Conduct of Employers and Employees Regarding Prevention and Protection Against Workplace Bullying provides guidance for identifying behaviors that may constitute bullying, thereby facilitating its distinction from violations of other laws or from lawful acts and activities. In order to properly understand workplace bullying, it is necessary to approach it in a multidisciplinary manner, as it represents a psychological, sociological, legal, organizational, health, and economic issue.
What the author has identified as key areas of ambiguity (different interpretations and conflicting views), which are important for understanding workplace bullying, relate to:
- concepts from both scientific and legal perspectives;
- repetition of actions and consequences of an incident;
- the difference between internal mediation (under the Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying – APWB) and mediation (under the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution – LMSD);
- the distinction between two types of requests within the internal procedure;
- the procedure of the internal process.
The purpose of this paper is to emphasize prevention and mutual respect as a universal principle.
Without Waiting for Consequences
In order to define more precisely what constitutes workplace bullying, scholars have been developing definitions and standardized questionnaires for its assessment since the 1990s.
Since then, and even today, one of the most frequently used definitions of workplace bullying and its corresponding questionnaire is based on the requirement that behaviors “are repeated, occur at regular time intervals (e.g., on a weekly basis), and persist over a certain period of time (e.g., around six months)” [1] [2].
Of course, today, more than 30 years later, if we were to adhere strictly to this criterion, we would already be referring to the consequences of bullying. This view is supported by findings indicating that harmful effects may occur after the very first incidents.
Long-Term Consequences of an Incident
Although the emphasis is placed on repetition, certain forms of behavior may have serious consequences even when they occur only once. A severe aggressive act or isolated incident may constitute an existential threat or a critical life event that permanently alters the victim’s psychology and behavior or destroys their career prospects [3]. Harmful rumors spread only once can ruin the victim’s career. For this reason, researchers have redefined this criterion by introducing the concept of the repetition of consequences.
The key point is precisely the “consequence” of behavior. When a person, for example, publishes a compromising photograph of a victim as part of cyberbullying [4], the act itself may occur only once, but its effect persists because the image can be continuously disseminated over a lifetime, thereby effectively ensuring the repetition of the act itself [5].
Is Intent to Harm a Necessary Component of Workplace Bullying?
Intent to cause harm is commonly considered a key component in the definition of workplace bullying. It is most often associated with repetitive behavior, since when a victim is repeatedly exposed to negative actions, it is assumed that the perpetrator is not acting accidentally or impulsively, but intentionally. Thus, intent is often presumed or inferred rather than directly examined. Only the person engaging in bullying truly knows whether such intent existed, which would imply that the perpetrator themselves would determine whether something constitutes bullying or not.
However, in most European research on workplace bullying, intent is not considered a necessary criterion, as it cannot be easily verified [6] and is therefore generally not included in studies. When an individual or group attempts to exclude someone through continuous negative behaviour, they do not necessarily have intent or awareness of causing psychological harm to the victim. Situations may also arise in which individuals are “competing for power.” In such cases, the goal is the protection and strengthening of one’s own position, while bullying becomes more of a secondary consequence rather than a deliberate intention to cause harm. Similarly, an arrogant and condescending person may criticize others in order to assert dominance and strengthen self-confidence, unaware that they are humiliating or ridiculing others. This means that it is possible to engage in bullying behavior unconsciously; however, the essential problem is that such behavior disregards the victim’s fundamental right to fair treatment and dignity [3]. This is consistent with the claim that bullying occurs when an individual neglects the need to respect the rights and dignity of others [7].
Crucially, the absence of intent to harm does not change the situation for the victim. In victim-centered research, exposure to behaviors that any reasonable person would consider inappropriate, unwanted, harmful, or unpleasant must be regarded as unacceptable, regardless of the perpetrator’s intent [3].
The Spiral of Incivility
Although the main determinants of workplace bullying are most strongly associated with the organization of the workplace itself and the fact that individuals engaging in abusive behavior may avoid consequences, much speculation has focused on whether certain personality traits typical of victims can be identified. Various factors have been mentioned, such as appearance, age and experience, gender, personality and temperament, attitudes, and expectations. Research has also shown that individuals who were victims during their school years are more likely to become victims in the workplace later in life.
When it comes to perpetrators, there is extensive literature on negative and “dark” personality traits associated with them. However, it is useful to recall earlier psychological experiments demonstrating that even individuals without pronounced violent tendencies may harm others when instructed to do so by an authority figure (thereby shifting responsibility away from themselves), under group influence (when they conform to the majority in order not to stand out), as well as under the influence of situational factors, namely within environments that create fertile ground for abuse of power and encourage abusive behavior.
One of the key elements in defining workplace bullying is the imbalance of power, or resources, between the perpetrator and the victim. Important resources include relationships with colleagues within and outside the organization, social standing within the team, as well as formal or informal power and position. The stronger the social ties and trust, the more stable the individual’s position within the organization.
The perpetrator most often possesses greater resources and uses this imbalance to exert pressure on the weaker individual. However, this dynamic is not necessarily permanent, and reality is often more complex; therefore, the focus below is placed on their mutual dynamics. Over time, power relations may shift, and perpetrators of workplace bullying may themselves become victims when they encounter negative reactions from their work environment, that is, a certain form of “response” from others [8].
Likewise, a person may simultaneously be both a victim and a perpetrator of workplace bullying. Victims do not necessarily remain passive, but may become perpetrators when they respond to bullying with the same behavioral patterns. This process usually begins with a single act of incivility that the other party perceives as injustice, triggering negative emotions and encouraging retaliation in kind, thereby further deepening tensions and causing behavior to become increasingly aggressive over time. This may be linked to the concept of displaced aggression, in which negative reactions are later directed toward third, uninvolved individuals [9].
Theoretical findings confirm that exposure to uncivil and aggressive patterns of behavior may lead to their adoption and reproduction, thereby sustaining a spiral of incivility.
*This section was inspired by examples from practice, where it was observed that employees react strongly when confronted with some form of injustice while, at the same time, behaving unfairly toward others, without questioning or even justifying their own behavior. However, this does not diminish their right to protection against workplace bullying.
How to Make the Perpetrator Aware of Their Behavior – The Preventive Aspect
First and foremost, an employee who suspects that they are being subjected to workplace bullying should, where possible and feasible in the specific circumstances, point out to the person whose conduct is perceived as bullying that such behavior is unacceptable and that, should it continue, legal protection will be sought. Such action has a preventive character and is regulated by the Rulebook on the Rules of Conduct of Employers and Employees Regarding Prevention and Protection Against Workplace Bullying (hereinafter: the Rulebook), Articles 15 and 18 [10]. Pointing out the behavior enables the potential perpetrator to become aware of their actions, which should contribute to preventing further repetition of such conduct.
In certain situations, after being confronted about their behavior, the perpetrator may change their manner of acting and shift to more subtle forms of bullying, particularly if they occupy a higher hierarchical position.
*For an overview of behaviors indicative of workplace bullying and sexual harassment, as well as behaviors that are not considered bullying, it is useful to consult the Rulebook [10].
Workplace Bullying under the Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying (APWB)
The Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying (hereinafter: APWB) [11] in Article 6, defines workplace bullying, thereby protecting three legal interests (personality, work environment, and working conditions), as follows:
“Workplace bullying, within the meaning of this Act, shall mean any active or passive conduct toward an employee or a group of employees by an employer that is repeated and that aims at or constitutes a violation of the dignity, reputation, personal and professional integrity, health, or position of the employee, and that causes fear or creates a hostile, humiliating, or offensive environment, worsens working conditions, or leads to the employee being isolated or induced to terminate the employment relationship or cancel the employment contract or another contract on their own initiative, as well as inciting or inducing others to engage in such conduct.”
Certain controversial issues and legal gaps in the APWB were comprehensively analyzed in the Commentary on this Act [12], to which this part of the paper refers and from which relevant interpretations are highlighted.
According to the definition, the existence of workplace bullying requires two cumulative conditions:
- repetition, which the legislator prescribed in order to distinguish workplace bullying from conflict. Workplace bullying may often arise from conflict (which occurs in a state of affect). The criterion of repetition originates from the scientific definitions of workplace bullying explained at the beginning of this paper. It is also discussed that the term “repetition” was used in the Act so that workplace bullying would contain elements of a misdemeanor offense, modeled after criminal law.
- intent (dolus; direct or eventual), in relation to the aim, the consequence, or both. The aim, or consequence, of workplace bullying may be that the employee voluntarily leaves the workplace, while the motives for such conduct are associated with various forms of perpetrator satisfaction, including emotional (psychopathological), strategic-economic (e.g., relieving the employer of statutory obligations in the event of termination), as well as political motives.
From a legal standpoint, the provision “that it is repeated” is imprecise and may lead to divergent practice under identical factual circumstances. In the Commentary, it is explained that there exists a misdemeanor that should be sanctioned, whereby repetition represents a qualifying circumstance for determining the penalty, similarly to the existence of a criminal offence and its corresponding sanction, followed by repetition and duration as aggravating circumstances.
Repetition may also be considered to include the first repetition of any of the activities referred to in Article 6 of the APWB or Article 12 of the Rulebook, if it is repeated by the same perpetrator, against the same injured party, in the same or similar manner, using the same or similar situation, analogous to a continued criminal offence (Article 61 of the Criminal Code [13]). This concerns an incident that may include multiple acts of workplace bullying, such as, for example, addressing someone by shouting, issuing threats and insults, and up to unjustifiably preventing the employee from performing work tasks.
Sexual Harassment
The APWB stipulates that its provisions also apply to cases of sexual harassment, in accordance with the law regulating employment.
The Labour Law (hereinafter: LL) [14] in Article 21, paragraph 2, defines sexual harassment as:
“Sexual harassment, within the meaning of this Law, shall be any verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct which aims at or constitutes a violation of the dignity of a person seeking employment, as well as of an employee, in the sphere of sexual life, and which causes fear or creates a hostile, humiliating or offensive environment.”
The APWB introduces a certain degree of ambiguity in application, providing in Article 3 that its provisions also apply to cases of sexual harassment, in accordance with the LL. The LL, on the other hand, defines sexual harassment in Article 21 as a form of discrimination. Confusion may arise as to which procedure should be initiated: protection against discrimination or protection against workplace bullying [15] [16]. For sexual harassment, the requirement of repetition of acts is not necessary. It is sufficient for it to occur only once in order to initiate court proceedings.
Employer’s Obligations
The employer’s obligation is the prevention of workplace bullying by creating a safe and healthy working environment (psychosocial environment), as well as informing employees in writing, prior to commencing work, of the prohibition of workplace bullying and implementing information measures.
The employer is also obliged to make the following information available to employees [12]:
- about the support person, who may be designated by the employer for the purpose of preventing workplace bullying. The employee contacts this person for advice, information, and support in resolving a disputed situation when, based on a subjective perception, they suspect that they are being subjected to workplace bullying (not regulated by the APWB, but provided for by the Rulebook).
- about persons authorized to initiate proceedings for protection against workplace bullying (these may include a trade union representative, a person responsible for occupational health and safety matters, etc.), to whom the employee may turn when they consider that they are being subjected to workplace bullying.
- about the person to whom the request for protection against workplace bullying is submitted (designated by the employer),
- as well as about the list of mediators kept by the employer.
Internal Mediation at the Employer under the Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying (APWB)
Internal mediation is conducted in accordance with the APWB, whereby the mediator assists the parties in reaching an amicable settlement of the dispute. Depending on whether the alleged workplace bullying is attributed to the employer or to another employee, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of requests:
1. Request for initiation of mediation proceedings – NOT MANDATORY
When the employer or the responsible person within the employer is accused of workplace bullying (Article 14 of the APWB), an attempt at internal mediation is not mandatory, i.e. a request for initiation of mediation proceedings with the employer does not have to be submitted. If the employee nevertheless decides to initiate the procedure, the further course of the procedure remains the same.
The employer may, but is not obliged to, accept the initiation of mediation proceedings. In that case, the employee who considers that they have been subjected to workplace bullying may initiate court proceedings before the competent court within 6 months from the date of the last act of workplace bullying.
*The term “responsible person within a legal entity” includes persons who have authority in work organization, employee management, or decision-making, such as directors, managers, supervisors, heads of departments or shift leaders, as well as other persons entrusted with powers that affect the position of other employees. These may also include persons who are not directly superior to the employee but have certain authorities, such as heads of other sectors. For more on this, see: [17].
2. Request for initiation of proceedings for protection against workplace bullying – MANDATORY
If the alleged workplace bullying is not attributed to the responsible person within a legal entity, i.e. to the employer as a natural person, the person who considers that they have been subjected to workplace bullying (or an authorized person) is obliged, prior to filing a lawsuit, to submit a reasoned request for protection against workplace bullying to the employer [12]. The reasoned request should contain basic information about the parties, a description of the conduct considered to constitute workplace bullying, information on its duration and frequency, as well as evidence supporting it. The content of the request is regulated by Article 22 of the Rulebook [10].
The emphasis is on its mandatory nature, because if this procedure is not complied with, the court will dismiss the lawsuit once it establishes that the claimant, prior to approaching the court, did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the manner prescribed before the employer, given that the decision on the failure of mediation is submitted together with the lawsuit.
Initiation of the internal procedure
Upon receipt of the request, a 3-day period begins for initiating the procedure, and from the date of receipt of the act (decision) on the initiation of the procedure, a 3-day period runs for the selection of a mediator (Article 15 of the APWB). The participants in the procedure mutually agree on or select a person to conduct the mediation procedure. The mediator must be an independent, impartial, and ethically reliable person who enjoys the trust of the parties to the dispute. The mediator may be selected from the internal list maintained by the employer or from external experts in this field. The costs of engaging an external mediator are borne by the employer, on the basis of a service contract, and the fee is regulated by the Tariff Rulebook [18].
If the claimant and the person accused of workplace bullying agree on the selection of a mediator, the mediator conducts an urgent procedure that should be completed within 8 working days from the date of the mediator’s selection. This period may be extended for justified reasons, but not longer than 30 days from the date of the mediator’s selection.
The procedure is informal, while respecting the fundamental principles of mediation (voluntariness, impartiality, confidentiality, and urgency). The mediator may conduct joint or separate meetings with the parties to the dispute, and, with the consent of one party, convey proposals and positions on specific issues to the other party. At the beginning of the procedure, the mediator should explain to the parties that the aim is not to establish guilt or sanction the “perpetrator,” but to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The mediator may also propose ways of resolving the dispute, but may not impose a solution, as the agreement is valid only if there is a mutual expression of will of the parties.
The procedure is successfully concluded by an agreement between the parties. The procedure is closed to the public, and all data are strictly confidential and may be disclosed only to the participants and competent state authorities in connection with protection against workplace bullying (Article 17 of the APWB).
Internal agreement and its effects
The agreement particularly contains measures for the cessation and prevention of further workplace bullying. It may include recommendations to the employer for eliminating the possibility of continued workplace bullying, such as the reassignment of the employee to another working environment, etc. The employer may accept these recommendations if they are in accordance with the law and its business policy. Here, the mediator’s skill becomes particularly evident, as the mediator should identify and propose a measure that best achieves the objective while minimally disrupting the work process. Although the APWB does not specify this, the agreement should contain a preamble including information on the legal basis for conducting the procedure (law, collective agreement, rulebook), the subject matter, the participants, the mediator, and a brief description of the procedure. The law does not provide for, but does not exclude, the possibility for the parties to regulate other circumstances contributing to the improvement of relations and mitigation of consequences, including material, non-material, and emotional satisfaction, subject to the employer’s consent [12].
With regard to the effects of the concluded agreement, Article 21, paragraph 2 of the APWB provides that it “depends on the will of the parties to the dispute, if the agreement regulates conduct in their mutual relationship,” which may appear to deviate from the fundamental principle of contract law that a contract, i.e., an agreement, is binding on the contracting parties – lex contractus. Therefore, this provision should be interpreted to mean that the content of the agreement depends on the willingness of the parties to reach a consensual solution, while the effect of the concluded and signed agreement is binding. In this way, the fundamental principle of mediation (voluntariness) is respected, while the legal effect of the agreement is regulated in accordance with the law and the purpose of the concluded agreement [12].
Termination of the internal procedure and the right to judicial protection
The procedure is terminated when:
- the mediator, after consultation with the parties, makes a decision to terminate the procedure because further proceedings are not justified. The decision is based on the parties’ lack of cooperation in reaching an agreement;
- when one of the parties withdraws from further mediation. In accordance with the principle of voluntariness, the parties may withdraw at any stage of the mediation process.
In such cases, the mediator submits the decision on termination of the procedure to the employer and the parties. The mediation procedure is also considered unsuccessful when the parties fail to agree on the selection of a mediator, in which case a notification is issued. In these situations, a 15-day period for filing a lawsuit before the court begins to run from the date of delivery of the decision or notification. The right to file a lawsuit is also granted to an employee who is not satisfied with the outcome of the workplace bullying protection procedure conducted before the employer (Article 29 of the APWB). In proceedings for protection against workplace bullying before the court, the defendant is always the employer, regardless of who is alleged to have committed the workplace bullying. If the claimant makes it plausible that workplace bullying occurred, the burden of proof that such conduct did not take place shifts to the employer.
*In this situation, there is an option to initiate mediation at any time (according to the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution – this will be discussed later), including before filing a lawsuit, during court proceedings, or during appellate proceedings, which represents a significant advantage of this form of mediation [16].
Protection measures and employees’ rights during the internal procedure
The APWB also provides certain protection measures and employees’ rights during the internal procedure [12]:
- Measures to prevent workplace bullying until the conclusion of the procedure (Article 24): The employer is obliged, based on the opinion of occupational medicine, to take urgent measures when there is an immediate risk to health, life, or a risk of irreparable damage. In such cases, the person accused of workplace bullying may be temporarily reassigned to another workplace or removed from work with compensation. Although this measure appears protective at first glance, in practice, it is difficult to implement.
- Right to refuse work (Article 26): An employee has the right to refuse to work if, according to the opinion of occupational medicine, there is an immediate risk to their health or life, and the employer has not taken the measures referred to in Article 24. During the refusal to work, the employee is entitled to compensation in the amount of the average salary from the previous 3 months and is protected from dismissal, with the obligation to return to work once the prescribed measures are ensured.
- Protection of participants in the procedure (Article 27, paragraph 1): An employee may not, due to initiating or participating in the workplace bullying protection procedure, be placed in a less favourable position, held disciplinarily or materially liable, dismissed, or declared redundant.
Abuse of the right to protection against workplace bullying / Establishing employee liability for workplace bullying
If the internal mediation procedure is unsuccessful, and there is reasonable suspicion that the right to protection against workplace bullying has been abused or that workplace bullying has been committed, the employer is obliged, pursuant to Article 23 of the APWB, to initiate proceedings for establishing the disciplinary liability of the employee.
For abuse to exist, it is necessary that the employee knew or should have known that there were no reasonable grounds for initiating the workplace bullying protection procedure, and that they initiated such a procedure with the intention of obtaining a benefit for themselves or another person, or of causing damage to another person (Article 11, paragraph 3 of the APWB).
Abuse is contrary to law and morality and most commonly occurs when there is a belief that the procedure can be used to avoid dismissal, when an attempt is made to obtain material benefit, or when an excuse for poor performance or breach of work discipline is sought by simulating workplace bullying.
The determination of abuse is carried out by the employer, and the sanctions are disciplinary measures ranging from a warning to dismissal, which in practice may lead to biased conduct by the employer [12], and thus to discouraging employees from initiating the workplace bullying protection procedure.
Mediation under the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (LMSD)
There are different methods of alternative dispute resolution. Previously, internal mediation conducted under the APWB was discussed. This part addresses mediation regulated by the Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (hereinafter: LMSD) [19]. Its application is broad and covers property, family, commercial, administrative, and consumer disputes, as well as other disputes which, by their nature, allow for amicable resolution. It is recommended that contracting parties include a clause in business cooperation agreements obliging them, in the event of a dispute, to first attempt to resolve it amicably or through mediation.
Mediation is based on fundamental principles such as voluntariness, equality of the parties, participation and attendance, exclusion of the public, confidentiality, neutrality, urgency, and inadmissibility of evidence in other proceedings. The procedure is conducted without unnecessary delay, and all proposals, statements, and evidence presented during the procedure remain inadmissible in other proceedings, unless the parties agree otherwise.
The mediation procedure is initiated when one party submits a proposal for mediation to the other party, directly, through a representative, or via a mediator. The other party is required to respond to the proposal within a maximum of 15 days. The mediator informs the parties about the rules of the procedure, its advantages, as well as costs in accordance with the Tariff Rulebook [18]. As a rule, costs are shared equally (50%), although they may also be borne by one party, most commonly the party initiating the procedure (e.g. banks and insurance companies). If the proposal is accepted, the mediator organizes the procedure and ensures the conditions for its conduct, taking into account the privacy of the premises so that no third parties may interfere with the process or compromise confidentiality.
During the procedure, an agreement on participation in mediation and a confidentiality statement are signed. The parties present their positions in an equal manner, while the mediator encourages dialogue and the presentation of proposals that may lead to a mutually acceptable solution. The procedure is generally conducted through joint sessions, but separate meetings may also be organized when necessary to better understand the interests of the parties. It is important to note that the mediator is obliged to clearly ask what, if anything, from the separate session may be communicated to the other party. Both parties must be informed about the voluntary nature of concluding an agreement. It is also essential that they fully understand it and participate equally in its drafting, so that no ambiguities arise later.
In disputes concerning workplace bullying, this form of mediation may be applied when the employer or the responsible person within the employer is liable for workplace bullying, when the previous internal procedure has not produced results, as well as when court proceedings are already underway. This procedure does not affect the right to judicial protection, and the parties may always attempt amicable resolution of the dispute; if unsuccessful, the option of turning to the court remains available.
Since the law allows this mediation to be initiated even during court proceedings (but only once), regardless of whether it is a first-instance or second-instance procedure, the court shall, by decision, stay the proceedings and refer the parties to mediation, together with all necessary information, including the Register of Mediators. If no agreement is reached within 60 days, the court shall continue the proceedings, while in the case of a concluded agreement, the proceedings are terminated and the case is considered resolved [16]. If the agreement is concluded before the first hearing, the parties are exempt from paying court and administrative fees, which represents a significant advantage and cost saving for the parties to the proceedings.
Effects of the agreement
The effects of the agreement in this type of mediation are regulated more precisely than in internal resolution, since Article 27 of the LMSD provides that the agreement may have the force of an enforceable instrument if the following conditions are met:
1) that it contains a statement of the debtor by which they agree that the creditor, on the basis of the agreement on dispute resolution through mediation, may, after the claim becomes due, initiate enforcement proceedings (enforcement clause);
2) that the signatures of the parties and the mediator are certified by the court or a public notary.
*Such an agreement shall not be given legal effect if its conclusion is not permitted, if it is contrary to public policy, if it is not suitable for enforcement, or if the subject of enforcement is impossible.
Author’s Reflection
The most frequent forms of workplace bullying in Serbia are directed at employees’ work and personality, such as gossip and rumours, ignoring greetings, withholding information, assigning tasks below one’s level of expertise, turning away or leaving the room when a person approaches. These behaviours often appear insignificant and are sometimes noticed only by the victim. However, they have far more far-reaching consequences than might initially be assumed.
Exposure to such behaviour can lead to a prolonged sense of hurt and result in the victim’s isolation, a diminished sense of pride in working for the organisation and of belonging, as well as reduced productivity and motivation, deterioration of health, and thoughts about finding another job.
Resistance and gossip arise and continuously develop within systems that value “obedience” rather than integrity, and they represent an expected consequence when someone introduces new standards. They serve as a means of maintaining “power by force,” based on the mistaken belief that projections of such behaviour determine the victim’s value. When observing the behaviour of such individuals, it can be noted that they act as perpetrators only when encouraged by an organisational culture that permits or rewards such behaviour, whereby the organisation primarily loses its image and becomes a toxic environment.
Furthermore, the author believes that the first step is prevention, which begins with personal responsibility, meaning that each of us should set a standard and be an example of ethical and healthy behaviour. Since everyone “carries” their own culture, attempts to resolve difficult situations (where possible) may or may not be successful. Therefore, the second step is drawing the perpetrator’s attention to their behaviour. Most people do not listen with the intention to understand, but with the intention to respond. This leads to misunderstandings and miscommunication, which is why attempts at amicable resolution should create an atmosphere in which the parties listen to each other in the correct way, that is, truly “hear” and understand one another without judgment.
In some situations, even when “justice is achieved,” meaning when the situation is resolved, employees often resign because they are already psychologically and physically exhausted, with a bitter feeling and disappointment in the organisation that primarily enabled such circumstances. Later, the job itself is perceived as overvalued in relation to the costs involved, in terms of the victim’s impaired health.
Finally, the author believes that true success is reflected in an individual’s ability to preserve their own integrity despite adverse circumstances and to transform negative experience into personal and professional growth.
Literature
[1] Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice (p. 22). Taylor & Francis.
[2] Vukelić, M. (2015). Understanding of workplace bullying through analysis of perception of negative acts (Doctoral dissertation, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Serbia).
[3] Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. L. (2020). The concept of bullying and harassment at work: The European tradition. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–53). CRC Press.
[4] Willard, N. (2007). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats and distress. Research Press.
[5] Tay, E. M. K. (2025). Revisiting the definition of bullying in the context of higher education. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 7, 278–294.
[6] Rayner, C., & Keashly, L. L. (2005). Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and North America. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 271–296). APA Press.
[7] Rhodes, C., Pullen, A., Vickers, M., Clegg, S., & Pitsis, A. (2010). Violence and workplace bullying. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(1), 96–115.
[8] Vranjes, I., Elst, T., Griep, Y., De Witte, H., & Baillien, E. (2023). What goes around comes around: How perpetrators of workplace bullying become targets themselves. Group & Organization Management, 48(4), 1135–1172.
[9] Vranjes, I., Salin, D., & Baillien, E. (2021). Being the bigger person: Investigating the relationship between workplace bullying exposure and enactment and the role of coping in ending the bullying spiral. Work & Stress.
[10] Regulation on Rules of Conduct of Employers and Employees regarding Prevention and Protection against Workplace Bullying (2010). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 62/2010.
[11] Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying (2010). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 36/2010.
[12] Kirćanski, O. (2015). Commentary on the Act on the Prevention of Workplace Bullying. Socio-Economic Council of the Republic of Serbia.
[13] Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia (2005). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 85/2005, 88/2005 – corr., 107/2005 – corr., 72/2009, 111/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016, 35/2019, 94/2024.
[14] Labour Law (2005). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 24/2005, 61/2005, 54/2009, 32/2013, 75/2014, 13/2017 (CC decision), 113/2017, 95/2018 (authentic interpretation) and 109/2025 (other law).
[15] Babović, M. & Reljanović, M. (n.d.). Sexual Harassment in the Republic of Serbia. OSCE Mission to Serbia.
[16] Stankov, S., i Petrović, I. (2025). “General vs. internal mediation in workplace bullying: challenges and limitations,” at the 11th International Scientific & Professional Conference “Innovation as an Initiator of the Development – MEFkon25”. Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance, Belgrade.
[17] Ilić, T. (2026, April 2). Komе se prijavljuje mobing – poslodavcu ili sudu?! Adv. Tamara Ilić. https://ilic-law.rs/kome-se-prijavljuje-mobing-poslodavcu-ili-sudu/ (accessed 05. 05. 2026)
[18] Rulebook on Tariffs on Fees and Costs in Mediation Proceedings (2015). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 35/2015.
[19] Law on Mediation in Dispute Resolution (2014). Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 55/2014.
Published: September 28, 2026
*The texts published on the Правне теме page of the Association of Judicial Assistants website do not constitute legal advice, but rather the personal views of the authors, which do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Association of Judicial Assistants.