Workplace Harassment And Criminal Liability
Introduction
Workplace harassment refers to repeated, unwanted behavior at work that humiliates, intimidates, or threatens a person, impacting their dignity, mental health, or work performance. In Finland, workplace harassment can lead to both civil liability and criminal liability, depending on the severity.
Legal Framework in Finland:
Criminal Code of Finland (Chapter 20) – addresses harassment, assault, and threats.
Non-Discrimination Act – protects employees from discriminatory harassment.
Occupational Safety and Health Act – obligates employers to prevent harassment and ensure a safe work environment.
Civil Liability – victims can also claim compensation for mental suffering or economic losses.
Key Legal Issues in Workplace Harassment
Type of harassment: verbal abuse, bullying, sexual harassment, intimidation, or threats.
Intent and repetition: criminal liability often requires repeated or intentional conduct.
Employer responsibility: failure to prevent harassment can result in administrative or civil liability.
Evidence collection: emails, messages, witness testimony, and recordings are crucial.
Detailed Case Law Examples
Case 1: Helsinki Office Bullying Case (2013)
Facts:
An employee repeatedly insulted a colleague in front of other staff and sent humiliating emails.
The victim suffered stress-related illness and took sick leave.
Legal Issues:
Violation of Chapter 20, Section 7 (harassment).
Court examined frequency of incidents, psychological impact, and intent.
Outcome:
Perpetrator sentenced to 6 months conditional imprisonment.
Employer required to implement anti-bullying measures.
Significance:
Established that repeated verbal harassment with psychological impact can attract criminal liability.
Case 2: Sexual Harassment in Manufacturing Sector (2014)
Facts:
A supervisor made repeated sexual comments and unwanted physical contact with a female employee.
Victim reported harassment, but it persisted over several months.
Legal Issues:
Sexual harassment under Criminal Code Chapter 20, Section 7a.
Evidence included witness statements, emails, and internal complaints.
Outcome:
Supervisor sentenced to 1 year imprisonment, partially suspended.
Employer fined for failing to provide a safe working environment.
Significance:
Showed courts take sexual harassment seriously, especially by supervisors exploiting power dynamics.
Case 3: Threats and Intimidation in Public Sector (2015)
Facts:
A public sector manager repeatedly threatened subordinates with job loss and negative performance reviews to coerce compliance.
Several employees filed complaints citing stress and anxiety.
Legal Issues:
Violated Criminal Code Sections 7 and 8 (threatening behavior, coercion).
Court assessed the pattern, severity, and victim testimony.
Outcome:
Manager sentenced to 8 months conditional imprisonment.
Mandatory training on leadership and workplace conduct was imposed.
Significance:
Demonstrates that abuse of authority and psychological threats can constitute criminal harassment.
Case 4: Cyberbullying in a Corporate Setting (2016)
Facts:
Employees used internal chat systems to post humiliating messages about a colleague’s performance and personal life.
Victim suffered anxiety and depression.
Legal Issues:
Digital harassment falls under general harassment laws if repeated and harmful.
Court analyzed chat logs, frequency, and intent.
Outcome:
Two employees convicted of harassment, sentenced to community service and fines.
Employer ordered to strengthen internal complaint mechanisms.
Significance:
First Finnish case explicitly recognizing cyberbullying within the workplace as criminal harassment.
Case 5: Racially Motivated Workplace Harassment (2017)
Facts:
Minority employees were subjected to racial slurs, exclusion from meetings, and derogatory remarks by colleagues.
Complaints filed with employer were ignored.
Legal Issues:
Criminal liability under harassment laws and the Non-Discrimination Act.
Court considered cumulative effect of repeated discriminatory behavior.
Outcome:
Offenders sentenced to 4–6 months conditional imprisonment.
Employer fined for failure to prevent discrimination.
Victims awarded financial compensation for mental distress.
Significance:
Reinforced that racial harassment at work is a criminal offense, not just a civil matter.
Case 6: Persistent Bullying in Healthcare Sector (2019)
Facts:
A nurse supervisor repeatedly humiliated junior staff, assigned menial tasks, and spread false rumors about competence.
Victims reported stress-related sick leaves.
Legal Issues:
Harassment and violation of Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Court examined long-term pattern, intent to demean, and impact on health.
Outcome:
Supervisor sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, partially suspended.
Employer required to revise reporting mechanisms and conduct training.
Significance:
Emphasized that long-term psychological bullying with measurable impact on employees can trigger criminal liability.
Key Legal Principles from Finnish Case Law
Repetition and Pattern
Single incidents may not constitute criminal liability; courts focus on repeated or systematic harassment.
Psychological Impact
Stress, anxiety, and illness resulting from harassment strengthen criminal cases.
Abuse of Power
Harassment by supervisors or managers is considered more serious due to authority dynamics.
Cyberharassment is Recognized
Internal digital communications that humiliate or intimidate colleagues are criminally punishable.
Employer Responsibility
Employers can face civil liability or fines if they fail to prevent or address harassment.
Conclusion
Finnish case law shows that workplace harassment can lead to criminal liability, especially when it is repeated, abusive, or discriminatory. Courts consider psychological impact, evidence of intent, and abuse of authority. Employers are also legally obligated to prevent harassment, or they may face sanctions.
RELATED Blog
comments