Workplace mobbing can be difficult to recognize, especially when it does not present itself through a single serious incident, but rather through reprimands, exclusions, job reassignments, pressures or devaluation that repeat over time. If you work in Milan, you might wonder whether it is possible to "report" it, what evidence is needed, whether an internal notice is sufficient, and when compensation can be claimed.
I want to help you distinguish mobbing from a workplace conflict or a legitimate organizational choice, without minimizing the effects that a work environment can produce on personal health and dignity. We will also see why the absence of the stricter requirements for mobbing does not necessarily rule out all protection: what matters is identifying the facts, the harm possibly suffered, and the connection between the two.
Mobbing does not coincide with every difficulty at work
Mobbing requires a sequence of harmful behaviors, not a simple tension with a superior or a colleague. In judicial interpretation, acts repeated over time, directed at marginalizing or persecuting the worker and capable of damaging their professional or personal sphere, assume relevance. These may be measures formally adopted by the employer, but also material behaviors: isolation, delegitimization, systematic exclusion from useful information, or unjustified depletion of duties.
A single unlawful act does not automatically become mobbing. A disciplinary measure, a transfer, a change of tasks or a negative assessment may be challengeable for their own reasons, but they must be read in context. To speak of an organized persecutory conduct, what counts is the succession of episodes, their overall meaning, and the effect produced on the person's position.
The behavior of colleagues can also be relevant when the organization is aware of it or should have intervened and fails to take adequate measures. Therefore, it is not only decisive who materially performs the hostile act. It is necessary to understand whether the employer prevented or removed a harmful situation, or allowed it to continue.
The term "mobbing" alone does not identify a crime. A criminal complaint requires that the individual facts constitute a specific offense provided for by law; the employment law classification of the case is not enough. In this guide, I focus on protection within the employment relationship and on the possible claim for compensation, which do not automatically depend on the existence of criminal proceedings.
Health protection applies even if there is no persecutory plan
Article 2087 of the civil code imposes on the employer a duty to protect the physical integrity and moral personality of the worker. This duty does not make the employer a guarantor of every individual discomfort, but requires measures consistent with the work performed, experience, and available technical knowledge to avoid foreseeable risks to health and dignity.
The absence of mobbing does not always exclude liability. The Court of Cassation has specified that the judge must verify whether the same alleged facts can show a violation of the protection obligation, even when a unitary persecutory intent is not found. The Court has also brought back to the same framework situations in which the employer negligently allows a stress-inducing environment capable of damaging the worker's health. You can read the summary of the principles in the 2024 Private Employment Case Law Review of the Court of Cassation and in the Review of the Labor Section regarding order no. 3692 of 2023.
Straining describes harmful work pressure without the typical continuity of mobbing. In practice, this may be a work situation that remains persistently burdensome or humiliating, even if the episodes do not show a reiterated persecutory design. The name given to the matter does not solely determine the right to compensation: the legal point is to verify whether there has been a violation of the duty of protection and what prejudice has resulted from it.
Prevention also concerns work-related stress. Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008 includes this risk in the assessment of health and safety risks. This is a general organizational obligation, not automatic proof that a single incident is mobbing; however, it helps to understand that psychosocial risks are not extraneous to health protection at work. The regulatory reference is available in the text of Article 28 of Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008.
What facts and evidence make protection concrete
The reconstruction must start from dated and verifiable facts. It is not enough to state that one has been marginalized: it is necessary to be able to indicate what is happening, when, who was present, what tasks were assigned before and after, which requests remain unanswered, and what practical consequences have occurred. A personal diary can help not to lose the chronology, but it gains strength if it finds support in communications, documents, or testimonies.
Emails, messages and service orders can explain the context. Useful examples include missed call-ups, contradictory instructions, task assignments, unanswered requests for clarification, shifts, and acts affecting duties. Pay slips and documents relating to bonuses or job levels can also become relevant, but only if connected to a specific fact: indiscriminately keeping many files does not replace a clear narrative of the affair.
Damage and the causal link require a distinct step. If compensation for harm to health is claimed, it is necessary to prove the existence of the prejudice and the connection with the work environment or conduct. The Court of Cassation summarizes that the worker must prove damage and causal link, while the employer must demonstrate having adopted the necessary measures to prevent it, once the elements of the claim have been alleged and proven. This burden-sharing does not eliminate the importance of concrete evidence nor allow presuming every suffering solely from the deterioration of the relationship.
Medical certifications must be properly placed. A certificate can document a disorder or a period of illness, but it does not establish by itself who is responsible for it. On the other hand, the absence of a certificate does not make an organizational behavior harmful to professionalism or dignity irrelevant. The claim and the evidence must correspond to the harm actually alleged.
Internal reporting, civil action and protection against other unlawful acts
A written report can serve to request that the situation be addressed. If company channels, designated figures, or procedures provided for by regulations and collective agreements exist, a sober and detailed communication can make the problem traceable. It is preferable to describe episodes, dates, and concrete requests, avoiding generic accusations or reconstructions that you cannot support.
Internal reporting is not a formula that solves everything. It can lead to clarification, an organizational change, or intervention against the behavior of third parties; it may also not be sufficient if the conduct derives directly from company choices or if the harm has already matured. There is no general rule whereby every judicial claim for protection or compensation must be preceded by an internal report, but omitting communication can make it more difficult to prove that the problem was brought to the attention of those who could intervene.
Action before the labor court can have different objects. Depending on the facts, one can discuss the legitimacy of a specific measure, the assignment of tasks, the failure to comply with the safety duty, or compensation for damages. Gathering every problem under the label of mobbing can be a mistake: if a transfer or demotion presents an autonomous flaw, that flaw must be explained and proven with its own rules.
Do not interrupt work without evaluating the consequences. Leaving the workplace, resignation, and failure to respond to company orders can affect the relationship and available protections. When the situation becomes unsustainable, the priority is to protect health without taking steps that make defending your position more difficult. I can help you organize the chronology and distinguish urgent acts from initiatives that require more complete preparation.
Compensation: what can be claimed and what is not automatic
Compensation requires proven damage, not mere unfairness. Unlawful conduct can justify the removal of its effects or other protections, but to obtain a sum by way of compensation, a consequent prejudice must be alleged and demonstrated. The damage may concern health, professionalism, lost pay, or other pecuniary and non-pecuniary effects, provided they are identified and linked to the facts.
There is no standard amount for mobbing. The judge considers the nature, duration, and gravity of the conduct, the proven damage, their impact on professional and personal life, and the causal link. The repetition and intensity of the conduct can affect the measure of relief, but it is incorrect to promise a result or calculate a figure without knowing the alleged damage and available evidence.
Compensation does not coincide with social security or insurance benefits. If health is compromised, different protections may come into play, each with its own prerequisites. The claim against the employer for breach of the protection obligation remains distinct from the possible recognition of benefits due by social security or insurance institutions: different items should not be automatically added together nor should the relationships between the various protections be neglected.
How to prepare the first elements in an orderly manner
Start with an essential chronology: indicate for each episode the date or period, people involved, event that occurred, available document, and concrete consequence. Add contracts, assignment or transfer letters, company communications, and health documentation only if connected to the affair. This material does not have to prove everything already; it serves to prevent different events from being confused and to understand whether the path concerns mobbing, a stress-inducing environment, demotion, a specific act, or multiple issues together.
Frequently asked questions
Can I report mobbing even if I am still employed?
Yes, protection does not presuppose the termination of the relationship. You can consider an internal report, the challenge of specific acts, or judicial action even while working. The choice requires attention because each initiative affects the ongoing relationship; it is useful to distinguish what must be challenged immediately from what can be documented over time.
Do I have to prove persecutory intent to obtain protection?
Not always. Persecutory intent is relevant to qualify conduct as mobbing in the strictest sense, but the lack of this element does not prevent verifying a violation of Article 2087 of the civil code. Concrete facts, damage when claiming compensation, and the causal link with work remain necessary.
Are emails and messages sufficient to prove mobbing?
It depends on what they document. Messages and emails can be very useful if they show repetition, content of requests, exclusions, or company responses. They are rarely sufficient in isolation: they must be inserted into a chronology and compared with tasks, orders, testimonies, and actual consequences. Their value lies in making specific facts verifiable.
Can I claim compensation if I do not have a medical diagnosis?
You can also assert damages other than to health, if they are alleged and proven. A diagnosis is instead central when claiming compensation for biological or psychological harm. In any case, conduct deemed unfair does not automatically produce compensation: one must identify the prejudice suffered and demonstrate its connection to the facts.
Can a company reorganization be mobbing?
A real reorganization is not mobbing in itself. The employer can modify the work setup within the limits of applicable rules. It becomes relevant to verify whether the reorganization is merely apparent, selectively targets a person without recognizable reasons, or is accompanied by harmful acts, isolation, and unjustified loss of functions.
Useful institutional references
The principles recalled do not replace the reconstruction of the individual case. To delve deeper into the relationship between mobbing, a stress-inducing environment, and the employer's obligation of protection, the most useful references are the 2024 Review of the Court of Cassation, the 2023 Monthly Review, and Legislative Decree no. 81 of 2008, Article 28, concerning work-related stress.
If you have a concrete matter to organize, you can contact me by bringing an essential chronology and documents connected to the main facts: the primary objective is to understand which protection truly corresponds to the problem you are facing.