Workplace Bullying Is Not Established Just Because "Someone Was Yelled At": 5 Legal Elements and 7 Management Assessments Every Boss and HR Must Understand
Following the implementation of the new Workplace Bullying Prevention regulations on July 1, 2026, there are two extreme misconceptions companies must avoid: one is "as long as an employee feels uncomfortable, it's workplace bullying"; the other is "if it didn't happen in the office, the perpetrator isn't a supervisor, it only happened once, or there is no medical certificate, then it definitely doesn't hold up."
Neither understanding is correct.
Under current workplace bullying regulations, determining whether an incident constitutes workplace bullying must return to the complete legal definition: a worker, in the course of performing duties in the workplace, suffers physical or mental health harm caused by personnel of the entity who utilize relationships of duty or power dynamics beyond the necessary and reasonable scope of business through continuous improper words or actions; where the circumstances are severe, continuity is not required.
For enterprises, what truly matters is not blindly memorizing legal clauses, but establishing an analytical framework capable of withstanding scrutiny by labor inspection authorities, courts, and external investigation panel members.
For labor law compliance training, board member continuing education credits, external committee members for workplace harassment/bullying, and litigation mediation representation, please contact Yesin Law Firm (Tel: +886-2-25156822; Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com).
1. Don't just ask "where was the person"; ask whether the incident has a substantive connection to work.
The first element is "a laborer performing duties in the workplace."
However, a "workplace" is not merely a specific physical address, and "performing duties" is not restricted strictly to timecard hours.
When employees are at client offices, construction sites, traveling on business, attending training sessions, participating in online meetings, or working remotely/from home, these environments can all satisfy the requirement of an employer-designated or arranged workplace. When managers discuss performance, shift scheduling, or work deliverables late at night via LINE, Email, Teams, or messaging group chats, the matter is not automatically disassociated from the workplace simply because the employee has returned home.
Conversely, even if two colleagues are inside company premises, if their conflict stems entirely from purely personal matters—such as personal relationships or financial loans unrelated to work responsibilities or power dynamics—it does not necessarily constitute workplace bullying.
Therefore, the first question for companies should not be "where did it happen," but rather "why did it happen, and is it related to work?"
2. Don't look solely at job titles; look at who actually holds the "power" that makes it hard for others to say no.
The second element is entity personnel "utilizing relationships of duty or power dynamics."
The biggest blind spot for many organizations is assuming bullying only occurs top-down from supervisors to subordinates.
In reality, a "duty relationship" may derive from formal organizational authority, such as scheduling, evaluations, promotions, bonuses, task assignments, and resource allocation. A "power dynamic", on the other hand, may stem from seniority, technical expertise, control of key accounts, networks, information gatekeeping, or actual influence within the team.
Thus, senior employees teaming up to isolate a newcomer, core project members deliberately blocking information, or informal opinion leaders inciting collective exclusion can all create a substantive power imbalance.
Conversely, having a power imbalance does not automatically mean bullying is established. Organizations must investigate further: what power did the perpetrator possess, and did they "utilize" that power to carry out improper conduct?
3. Supervisors have management authority, but management must not "overstep" necessary and reasonable scope.
The third element is whether the conduct exceeds necessary and reasonable business scope.
Supervisors certainly have the right to demand performance, correct errors, adjust duties, implement PIPs, and issue negative performance ratings. The new workplace bullying legislation has never asked managers to stop managing; rather, it requires organizations to distinguish between reasonable management and the abuse of power.
When evaluating, at least three questions should be asked:
Does this measure serve a genuine business purpose?
Is it truly necessary to go to this extent to achieve that purpose?
Do the methods, standards, and procedures comply with the principle of proportionality?
For instance, asking an employee to revise and resubmit a report by Friday is task-oriented feedback. However, repeatedly making derogatory remarks in public like "With your skill level, how do you even dare come to work?" or "Did you bring your brain today?" equates to personal degradation and carries a high risk of constituting bullying.
Reasonable management addresses work issues; bullying frequently uses work as a pretext to settle personal grudges.
4. Don't mechanically count "how many times"; observe whether a pattern of continuous harm has formed.
The fourth element is "continuous" improper words or actions.
Law does not mechanically specify that continuity requires three occurrences, five occurrences, or a duration of three months.
What truly needs to be evaluated is whether individual incidents, when connected over time, form a recurring, targeted pattern of harm directed at a specific individual.
Failing to reply to a message once might just be an oversight; systematically withholding necessary information over the long term can create job obstruction. Forgetting to invite someone to a meeting once might be an administrative error; continuously excluding a specific employee from essential meetings constitutes isolation.
Therefore, HR cannot slice incidents into isolated occurrences. Instead, establish a timeline to examine frequency, target, context, and whether the conduct deliberately persisted after warnings.
5. A single incident cannot be dismissed outright as "unsubstantiated."
The law simultaneously stipulates that where circumstances are severe, continuity is not required.
This means "it only happened once" cannot serve as a valid reason for companies to refuse accepting complaints or to close cases directly.
If a single act involves severe public humiliation, personal threats, malicious exposure of highly sensitive privacy, or causes severe psychological shock and workplace safety risks, it may still satisfy the criteria for severe circumstances.
Therefore, the correct logic is: evaluate continuity for general cases, and inspect the degree of severity for single-incident cases.
What organizations must avoid is replacing thorough legal analysis with a blanket sentence like "it only happened once."
6. Lacking a medical diagnosis certificate does not mean there is no health harm.
The fifth legal element requires that improper conduct "causes harm to physical or mental health."
The most common misconception here is requiring employees to produce psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalization records, or sick leave certificates.
While harm to physical or mental health can certainly be proven through medical records, a medical diagnosis is not the sole proof. Symptoms such as insomnia, dread of coming to work, reduced concentration, low mood, palpitations, gastrointestinal distress, attendance anomalies, or marked shifts in work performance can all form part of the holistic assessment.
The true challenge is not proving whether discomfort exists, but establishing causation:
When did the improper conduct begin?
When did symptoms appear or worsen?
Did symptoms improve after leaving the specific work environment?
Are there supporting messages, witness statements, attendance logs, EAP, or occupational health records?
Possessing a diagnosis certificate does not automatically establish bullying; lacking one cannot automatically rule out health harm.
7. What companies truly need to establish is an investigation framework capable of explaining "why."
For business owners, HR executives, and managers, the ultimate significance of the new workplace bullying regime is not adding another grievance form, but transforming personnel conflicts previously handled by intuition into verifiable procedural justice.
A mature investigation report should never simply state: "It happened at the company, so it qualifies," "The respondent is a manager, so power exists," "It happened only once, so it's unsubstantiated," or "There is no diagnosis, so no harm occurred."
A truly professional report must systematically articulate work connections, formal duties and substantive power dynamics, business purpose and necessity of methods, continuity or severity of incidents, physical and mental health impacts, and causal links across the chain of evidence.
Ultimately, companies face more than just the question of "whether this case is established." More importantly, if labor inspectors, courts, media, or the Board re-examine the case, can the company present a well-reasoned decision backed by facts, law, and evidence?
Advice from Attorney Chen Ye-xin
The five legal elements of workplace bullying can be memorized through five key concepts:
Work: Workplace and duties evaluate job connection.
Power: Duty or power dynamics evaluate actual leverage.
Overstepping: Necessary and reasonable boundaries evaluate proportionality.
Continuity: Frequency and severity evaluate patterns or single critical events.
Risk: Physical and mental health impacts evaluate health risks.
However, what corporate HR teams must remember is not just these concepts, but their role in fostering a mature corporate governance culture. Clarify work connections before identifying substantive power; confirm management objectives before assessing necessity; observe overall behavioral patterns rather than merely counting occurrences; and understand environmental health risks rather than demanding medical certificates alone.
When the next complaint arises from a late-night LINE group chat—where the perpetrator is not a manager, the event occurred only once, and the employee holds no medical certificate—will your company quickly dismiss the case as unacceptable, or will it render a professional decision based on the five statutory elements capable of withstanding scrutiny by labor authorities and courts?
Comments