Le harcèlement moral au travail est un concept assez déroutant, car il n’en existe pas de définition objective, précise et reconnue de tous. La loi française tente de cerner ce phénomène afin de pouvoir le sanctionner, mais la définition qu’elle propose s’appuie plus sur les conséquences du harcèlement que sur ses causes et sa nature. De ce fait, les juges ont dû établir eux-mêmes des critères que l’on retrouve dans la jurisprudence. On constate que pour établir si une situation relève du harcèlement, les juges se sont appuyés sur la nature des faits reprochés (atteinte à la dignité du salarié, atteinte aux droits, compromission de l’avenir professionnel, altération de la santé et autres), sur leur répétition, sur leur conjonction et sur leur durée. Ainsi, outre le fait que certains symptômes sont apparentés à un état de stress posttraumatique, le diagnostic de harcèlement requiert la présence de nombreuses formes d’agissements répétés ayant des conséquences dans plusieurs domaines, pouvant être attestées par des témoignages, des documents précis et concordants et la preuve de circonstances ayant pu le déclencher ou le favoriser dans plus de la moitié des cas.

Bullying is a much discussed and studied concept and yet there is a huge amount of terms and definitions that describe it. The lack of unity and precision around bullying raises several questions, notably in the judicial field. Indeed, how can judges determine if a given situation comes close to bullying or not if they do not have a precise definition of what bullying consists in? The French law attempts to clarify this concept, but it still remains vague on several points, highlighting the effects of bullying without explaining its causes and nature.

This study aims at providing further precisions on the definition and bases itself on the analysis of law cases. These show which criteria the judges use to determine if the victim has been bullied or not.

In this study, we used the judgments published on the website of the French ministry of justice in which a situation of bullying had been proven. Seventy-two percent of the victims were women whereas 75% of the perpetrators were men.

The great majority (91%) of the persons convicted of bullying had a higher hierarchical position than their victims. No case from a subordinate to a superior could be found. Nine percent of the cases were bullying between colleagues. The average seniority was 15 years. The facts that influence the judges’ decisions are always dignity-undermining facts, which are frequently combined with an alteration in the victim’s health, an endangering of the victim’s career and, less often, with the non-respect of the worker’s rights. Dignity-undermining consists in humiliations (in 61% of the cases), insults or discourteous comments (27%), disrepute of the victim’s work (24%), unjustified sanctions or reproaches, attacks on private life (15%), isolation (15%) and overload of work (12%). In half of the cases, alteration in health is held as the consequence of bullying. The judges mention some anxiodepressive syndroms or psychological problems without providing any supplementary details. No PTSD-like symptomatology has, for now, been mentioned although since the end of the 1990s, the relationship between bullying and clinical symptoms of PTSD has been proven by many researchers. In 31% of the cases, the judges mention some facts that endanger the victim’s career and in 20%, the worker’s rights have not been respected (wages not paid…).

Very often, the judges use some other criteria related to the conditions which caused the appearance of bullying, to the kind of bullying the victim had to face and to the circumstances that enabled the situation to continue. Moreover, the judges try to determine if the negative acts described above have been repeated in time. The average number of the facts that influence the judges to determine if a situation is or is not a bullying situation is seven. The criterion related to the conjunction of different kinds of consequences (dignity undermining, non-respect of rights, alteration in health and endangering the professional future) is found in 90% of the cases. The duration of bullying does not seem to be a determining factor. The shortest length we found was six months and the average was three years. The judges nearly always refer to written documents (medical certificates, affidavits by colleagues or former employees, contracts of employment, internal documents, etc.) that must be detailed and in agreement.