Bullying in the workplace is a pervasive issue across the United Kingdom that leads to significant repercussions for both employees and employers. The psychological impact on those who are subjected to such conduct cannot be overstated. Regrettably, it is not uncommon for victims to suffer long-term psychiatric damage, often detrimentally impacting their ability to work or maintain professional and personal relationships. According to TUC’s Health and Safety Representatives Survey 2024-2025, fifty-three percent of representatives identified bullying and harassment as a significant hazard within their workplace, underscoring the breadth of this issue.
Bullying represents a material source of legal, financial and reputational risk for employers. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has identified poor mental health as the leading cause of long-term absence amongst UK workers, resulting in over twenty million working days lost to work-related stress, depression or anxiety. Employers will be acutely aware of the impact such absences have on the financial productivity of their organisation, with ACAS estimating an annual loss of up to two billion pounds per annum.
At present, bullying is not defined within UK legislation. As a result, employers address the issue inconsistently, leading to discrepancies in the levels of protection afforded to workers and increasing the risk of internal disputes and subsequent litigation. A clear understanding of the current legal framework is therefore essential for employers seeking to minimise risk and anticipate how claims may be framed.
The current legal framework
The absence of a statutory definition leaves victims without a direct route to redress, as workplace bullying is not recognised as a standalone legal wrong. Instead, claimants must rely on existing statutory and common law routes, each of which presents significant limitations. While these causes of action offer limited protection, they are not fit to address the complexity of the wider issue and leave significant gaps in the law.
The Equality Act 2010
The Employment Tribunal will often be the most immediate forum for redress for victims of workplace bullying or harassment. Such claims are typically advanced under the Equality Act 2010; however, the Act’s scope is narrow. Under the Act, harassment is defined as unwanted conduct having the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Further, for conduct to fall within the Act, it must be linked to a protected characteristic.
Frustratingly, less overt forms of bullying, such as exclusion, persistent criticism or an excessive and unreasonable workload may fall outside the Act, provided that they are not discriminatory in nature.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 offers an alternative route for claimants; however, the challenges remain. Caselaw has held that harassment under the Act must be “oppressive and unacceptable”, often approaching a criminal standard that disqualifies the more common forms of bullying.
Moreover, vicarious liability under the Act requires a sufficiently close connection between the conduct in question and the role of the perpetrator’s employment duties. This is often a difficult threshold to satisfy and is particularly problematic in cases where bullying arises from interpersonal conflicts.
Claims in negligence
Claims in negligence at common law present further obstacles for claimants. Of course, employers owe a non-delegable duty to take reasonable steps to protect employees from foreseeable harm, including psychiatric injury. Where such harm is within the employer’s knowledge, and no adequate steps are taken to mitigate the risk, liability may arise. However, in practice, establishing a breach is often difficult. Claimants must show what the employer knew, or ought reasonably to have known, at the material time. This evidential burden is frequently compounded by employees’ reluctance to give witness evidence against their employer and by the absence of contemporaneous documentation.
Although the current legal framework presents significant difficulties for claimants, employers should not underestimate the risk of litigation exposure. Claims under existing statutory and common law routes are notoriously difficult but not doomed to fail. These claims are more likely to succeed where internal policies are inadequate, investigations are mishandled, or documented concerns are not acted upon. With that in mind, robust procedures and timely intervention remain critical to managing risk.
The changing legal framework
From October 2026, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will implement an extension to the limitation period for most Employment Tribunal claims. Currently, most Employment Tribunal claims must be presented within three months less one day of the act or omission complained of. From an employer’s perspective, that relatively short limitation period has historically operated as an important safeguard, reducing the period of litigative uncertainty, limiting the scope for stale claims and enabling organisations to investigate allegations while evidence remains fresh.
Accordingly, the impending implementation of the six-month time limit is likely to heighten employers’ exposure to litigation. With that in mind, employers should be advised to carefully audit their record-keeping, investigative and dispute resolution procedures, ensuring these are fit for purpose. Importantly, it must be recognised that decisions made during internal disputes may be scrutinised in the Tribunal months down the line, increasing the risk of inconsistent accounts and missing documentation.
With that in mind, employers’ existing processes must be robust enough to withstand scrutiny by the Tribunal. Best practice involves maintaining detailed contemporaneous notes, ensuring that findings are clearly reasoned and consistent with policy and preserving all key documentation for an adequate period of time.
Immediate steps for the responsible employer
In recent years, several regulatory bodies have implemented enhanced misconduct policies that explicitly address bullying and harassment, in particular, the Bar Standards Board and Financial Conduct Authority. Such regulations enable employers within the relevant industry to standardise their internal processes, ensuring a level of consistency and accountability. However, employers outside of these regulated industries must be more proactive in understanding the evolving legal landscape to effectively mitigate risk.
Importantly, workplace bullying constitutes a significant psychosocial hazard within UK workplaces. Therefore, it should not be approached in the same manner as conventional physical health and safety hazards, despite the fact that employers may be inclined to rely on familiar compliance mechanisms. Unlike conventional physical risks, bullying can be more subtle, develop gradually and become embedded within an organisation’s culture in ways that are not immediately apparent. This creates a particular challenge for employers.
Identifying risks at an early stage
To effectively mitigate risk, employers will need to take a more proactive and culturally informed approach. It is essential that employers properly understand the nature of the risk and adopt internal processes capable of identifying concerns at an early stage. A key component in this approach is clear and accessible reporting pathways. Where employees understand how to raise concerns, what process will follow and the potential outcomes available, they are more likely to engage with internal processes at an earlier stage. A workplace culture in which victims and witnesses feel empowered to report uncivil conduct with confidence is an important protective measure, both in preventing escalation of the conduct itself and in enabling timely intervention before matters develop into formal disputes or litigation
Enhanced investigative rigour
With the impending extension of Tribunal limitation periods, employers should evaluate whether existing grievance and investigative processes remain fit for purpose. The longer timeframes afford both parties the opportunity to engage in meaningful internal dispute resolution before formal proceedings commence. Conducting prompt and well-documented investigations is vital. Where investigations are not well reasoned, consistent with internal policy or impartial, employers will face heightened risks of litigation.
Importantly, such policies should be reviewed to ensure that they clearly identify and define bullying, setting out behavioural expectations with clear sanctions for instances of non-compliance. In line with best practice, such statements should go beyond generic zero-tolerance stances and provide clear examples of unacceptable conduct, as well as guidance on the relevant reporting mechanisms.
Change from the top down
Managerial training is of equal importance. Standards of workplace behaviour are often set and reinforced through management practice, and employers should recognise that not all instances of bullying arise from deliberate misconduct; in many cases, they may stem from poor communication, inadequate supervision or inconsistent management. It is imperative that employers invest in training that equips managers to both identify early indicators of bullying, and also respond appropriately to concerns, apply policies promptly and consistently, thereby preventing disputes from escalating.
Lessons from abroad
A comparative analysis of workplace bullying legislation in Europe, in particular, the Netherlands, reveals a more progressive legislative approach to this issue. Under the Dutch Working Conditions Act (Arbowet), bullying was traditionally treated as falling within the broader concept of psychosocial workload; however, amendments introduced in 2007 brought such conduct within the Act’s express scope.
The Act now defines bullying as structured, repeated and intimidating behaviour directed at an employee who is unable to defend themself. By treating bullying as a distinct form of workplace misconduct, rather than incorporating it within related concepts such as harassment or discrimination, Arbowet adopts a broader and more accessible framework for redress. The Dutch approach illustrates the benefits the UK could achieve by adopting similar legislative developments.
The Bullying and Respect at Work Bill
In July 2023, Labour MP Rachael Maskell introduced the Bullying and Respect at Work Bill, marking a potentially significant development in the UK legislative landscape.
The Bill seeks to place a statutory definition of bullying on the legal framework and establish a Respect at Work Code setting out minimum standards for safe and respectful working environments. The Bill proposes to allocate investigatory powers to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in respect of organisations suspected of non-compliance. Although the Bill did not progress following the prorogation of the 2022–2023 Parliamentary session, it is hoped that it may be reintroduced in a future session. If enacted, the Bill would represent a material step towards strengthening workers’ rights.
However, a victory for workers’ rights is not a loss for employers. When bullying is defined in such a structured and conventional way, it eradicates stigma around the issue, and in turn, empowers victims to speak out, armed with legislative protections. As outlined above, this will in turn benefit employers, who are enabled to identify risks at an earlier stage, allowing for earlier internal intervention and potential mitigation of escalation to internal disputes or litigation. As such, the strengthening of workers’ rights should not be viewed as a burden for employers, but rather a tool. It is important that both parties understand that the eradication of toxic workplace cultures that precipitate bullying, and inspire litigation, employers and employees must work together. Importantly, legal professionals play a crucial role in guiding employers towards practices that protect both their workforce and organisation.
-cropped-7ocv6p1p.jpg&w=256&q=75)
Copyright & permissions
