[Workplace Bullying Legal Elements 2 of 5]Understanding the Word "Power": Bullying Can Occur via Power Dynamics Even Without a Managerial Title
"I'm not even a manager, so how could I be committing workplace bullying against him?"
This statement represents one of the most common misconceptions among respondents and even internal investigators handling workplace bullying complaints.
Article 22-1, Paragraph 1 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act stipulates that workplace bullying occurs when 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" beyond the necessary and reasonable scope of business through continuous improper words or actions; where the circumstances are severe, continuity is not required.
This relational element can be understood through a single concept: "power." Did the perpetrator leverage organizational authority or actual workplace influence to place the victim in a position where they could hardly refuse or escape, rendering them a target of bullying?
An asymmetry of power does not guarantee that a case is established; conversely, parallel peers or even subordinates exercising bullying behaviors against superiors through job relationships may still constitute workplace bullying. Dedicated workplace bullying task forces cannot conclude that a subordinate cannot bully a superior based solely on job titles or seniority.
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. Entity Personnel: First confirm whether the parties belong to the internal organization.
The core focus of the workplace bullying regulations is bullying between personnel within the same business entity. According to Ministry of Labor guidelines, the perpetrator and victim generally belong to the same internal entity, where one party takes advantage of position or duty to engage in improper speech or behavior toward the other.
Therefore, "entity personnel" includes not only chairpersons, general managers, and supervisors of all levels, but also general colleagues, project leads, senior employees, and other personnel integrated into the company's internal HR and operational management system. Assessments cannot rely solely on sharing an office building or brand name under the same group; HR departments must first verify the employer entity, organizational affiliation, and personnel management relationship.
As for verbal abuse, threats, and attacks committed by clients, consumers, contractors, or external third parties, these generally fall outside the scope of "internal personnel exploiting relationships." However, they may still constitute unlawful physical or mental infringement under Article 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Employers remain legally obligated to prevent and handle such incidents, and cannot ignore them simply because the specific workplace bullying chapter does not apply.
Keywords: [Workplace Bullying] [Entity Personnel] [Workplace Unlawful Infringement]
2. Duty Relationships: Workplace bullying is not limited to supervisor-subordinate dynamics.
A "duty relationship" typically stems from formal organizational division of labor and job assignments—such as a manager's authority over task delegation, shift scheduling, performance evaluation, bonuses, promotions, transfers, and resource allocation. It may also derive from the review and directive authority granted to project leads, acting managers, auditors, or functional departments. Even across parallel departments with no direct reporting line, using duty relationships to inflict improper treatment on colleagues can still constitute workplace bullying.
"Utilizing" duty includes tactics such as a manager deliberately withholding essential information and then criticizing the employee for failing, intentionally setting impossible goals, threatening compliance via scheduling or evaluations, or excluding employees from essential meetings and activities. The Regulations Governing Measures for Preventing Workplace Bullying list job obstruction, withholding information, and intentionally assigning unreasonable targets as typical behavioral patterns to be holistically considered.
Therefore, an investigation report cannot simply state "the respondent is a manager, hence a duty relationship exists." It must further explain: what powers were held, how those powers were exercised, and whether the disputed conduct was executed through those very powers.
Keywords: [Duty Relationships] [Management Authority] [Abuse of Power] [Principle of Proportionality]
3. Power Dynamics: Individuals without managerial titles may still hold substantial power that makes others unable to say no.
The term "power dynamic" covers a broader scope than formal supervisory authority.
Some employees, despite lacking managerial titles, may exercise influence due to seniority, technical expertise, control over key accounts, information gatekeeping, close ties with executives or major shareholders, or strong peer leadership. In such cases, organizational charts alone are insufficient; a substantive assessment is required: Does this individual possess the ability to impact the victim's access to work, information, resources, evaluations, or standing within the team?
For example:
Senior employees routinely coercing newcomers to perform their duties and orchestrating group isolation if refused.
Core project members deliberately blocking information so specific peers fail to complete tasks.
Opinion leaders inciting collective exclusion, spreading rumors, or disclosing private matters to exclude an individual from work meetings and affairs.
These individuals may lack formal managerial titles, but they exercise control through substantial power dynamics. Behaviors listed in the Regulations Governing Measures for Preventing Workplace Bullying—such as power oppression, social exclusion, work obstruction, and privacy invasion—remind organizations not to focus solely on top-down managerial bullying.
Conversely, a conflict involving a manager or senior staff member does not automatically imply power-based bullying. Investigators must objectively determine whether actual influence was imbalanced, whether the perpetrator exploited that leverage, and whether a causal link exists between the relationship and improper conduct.
Keywords: [Power Dynamics] [Social Exclusion] [Corporate Governance]
Advice from Attorney Chen Ye-xin
The focus of the second element of workplace bullying is never just "who holds the higher job title," but rather who wields influence within workplace duty or power dynamics that makes it difficult for others to refuse, and how that power is exercised.
Managers have authority to manage, but cannot use evaluations, scheduling, or resource allocation for humiliation or retaliation; senior employees and opinion leaders, even without titles, cannot leverage networks, information, or group influence to isolate newcomers; and companies cannot refuse protection against unlawful third-party infringements simply because they fall outside the specific workplace bullying provisions.
When investigating the relational element, organizations should address at least three questions:
Are both parties internal entity personnel?
What formal duty authorities does the perpetrator possess?
Is there an unwritten, substantive power dynamic that controls the victim's working conditions?
When identifying workplace bullying risks, does your company still look solely at job titles on business cards, or do you now examine the true "power" within the organization that dictates who speaks, who receives resources, and who dares not say no?
Comments