News

Workplace bullying is becoming an increasingly common topic of discussion in Estonia, but experts warn that the meaning of the term has become blurred over time. Situations that are not actually workplace bullying are often labeled as such. At a seminar organized by RASK and PARE (Estonian Human Resource Management Association), experts in the field discussed where the line between bullying, disputes, and conflicts of values lies, and how employers should prevent and resolve such situations.

Addressing workplace bullying begins with its definition – or, more accurately, with its absence at the legal level. RASK attorney-at-law Kai Villemson explained that the law does not directly define the concept of workplace bullying, and its meaning is primarily shaped by case law. Generally speaking, this refers to repeated and systematic negative behaviour that has an impact on an employee’s health.

RASK partner Annika Vait added that when it comes to workplace bullying, it is the pattern of behaviour that matters. “It is not a one-time conflict or an unpleasant situation, but rather consistent and, in most cases, deliberate conduct.” However, it is precisely this distinction that often remains unclear in everyday workplace disputes.

Workplace bullying or a labour dispute?

The experience of HR managers shows that a large proportion of suspected workplace bullying is actually linked to other issues. Katri Jürine, Head of People at LHV Group, pointed out that most cases stem from tensions or misunderstandings between employees. Often, a conflict of expectations is added to the mix—that is, the employee has not fully understood their role or the nature of their work. “Workplace bullying actually occurs rather rarely. Much more often, it is a matter of a conflict of values or the fact that the person has not understood where they came to work and what is expected of them,” said Jürine.

The discussion also highlighted a broader issue: a lack of self-reflection and critical thinking. According to HR managers, people may not always be able to adequately assess whether a problem lies in the work environment or in their own expectations and capabilities. Thus, a situation where a person does not actually fit into their role or the organization more broadly may be perceived as workplace bullying. Kai Reigo, HR manager at Baltic Restaurants Estonia, shared a similar experience, noting that the term “workplace bullying” is sometimes used too lightly. “Not every piece of negative feedback or assignment is workplace bullying, even though it is sometimes interpreted that way,” she noted.

Several participants in the discussion pointed out that suspicions of workplace bullying often arise during times of change, such as when a new manager is hired or during organizational restructuring. According to Dagny Aalde, Acting Head of People at Ericsson Estonia, such situations are natural sources of tension: “When work arrangements change or management styles shift, uncertainty arises, and conflicts can escalate from there.” Legal advisors’ experience also confirms this pattern. The more people affected by the change, the greater the likelihood that someone will perceive the situation as unfair or even as bullying.

A New Reality: Artificial Intelligence in Labor Disputes

A new trend highlighted at the seminar was the role of artificial intelligence in labour disputes. HR managers and legal advisors are increasingly encountering complaints drafted with the help of AI.

According to Dagny Aalde, such submissions are often formally very correct but substantively weak. Kai Villemson added that AI can also provide a misleading sense of certainty: “There are cases where references are made to court rulings that do not even exist.”

Annika Vait also emphasized that while artificial intelligence is a useful tool, it cannot replace a substantive understanding of the situation and real facts. “Documents created by AI may contain a lot of text, but they often lack concrete facts and evidence, and this is a growing problem.”

Solutions are usually found within the organization

According to practitioners, the vast majority of cases raised by employees never reach the labour dispute committee or the courts; instead, they are resolved within the organization. Katri Jürine explained that, based on her experience, approximately 95 percent of cases are successfully resolved through dialogue and mediation. Often, it is enough for the parties to discuss the situation with the help of a neutral mediator. It is important to respond early on. “When the first signs appear, you must immediately investigate what is happening, rather than hoping the issue will resolve itself,” advised Kai Reigo.

Legally, the employer’s responsibility is clear. They must ensure a safe work environment and take action when problems come to light. Annika Vait emphasized that employers must never remain passive: “If you’ve been notified, you must intervene. Burying your head in the sand is the worst possible solution.”

In practice, labour law experts recommend documenting all incidents properly. If a dispute reaches the labour dispute committee or the courts, the central issue becomes one of proof. In cases of workplace bullying, the burden of proof lies with the employee, but in practice, many are unable to present their claims with sufficient specificity. “Often, the claims remain vague. People say that the behaviour was inappropriate, but they are unable to describe exactly what it consisted of,” explained Annika Vait. However, an exception regarding the burden of proof applies to allegations of discrimination, where the obligation to prove that the violation did not occur lies with the employer.

In both cases, gathering and preserving evidence is of crucial importance, as the risk may not be limited to simply losing the dispute. If the dispute moves from the labour dispute committee to court, the losing party may also have to bear the other party’s legal costs. Employees often do not realize that an unfounded accusation of workplace harassment can also be financially costly for them. This awareness should be raised. On the other hand, employers were also warned that in the event of a dispute, litigation can be time-consuming and costly, which is why settlement agreements are often preferred in practice. It was noted during the discussion that, from the employer’s perspective, this is often less risky and burdensome than termination of the employment relationship by one party, especially if the legal position is strong.

Prevention starts with leadership

One of the key messages of the seminar was that preventing workplace bullying does not start with conflict resolution, but with organizational culture. According to Dagny Aalde, the key issue is the quality of leadership. “When leaders act fairly and in accordance with core values, there are fewer conflicts.”

The importance of raising awareness was also emphasized, not through large-scale general training sessions, but through smaller, substantive discussions. This way, the message gets across precisely in small groups, where people can ask questions and participate in the discussion.

The discussion concluded that workplace bullying is a serious issue, but that excessive and imprecise use of the term does not help either employees or employers. Awareness should be raised among both employers and employees regarding where the line lies between workplace bullying, labour disputes, and conflicts of values. This would benefit both parties in the employment relationship and help reduce unnecessary proceedings before labour dispute committees and courts. As a separate step, it is important to continuously work toward creating a safer and more transparent work environment.