27.04.2026 | Articles, SAVALnews
Bullying and inappropriate treatment in workplaces is unfortunately quite common in Finland. For example, according to the 2024 Working Life Barometer (Publications of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Working Life, 2025:21), 29 per cent of employees had observed bullying by colleagues occasionally and 5 per cent continuously. Altogether 16 per cent of employees had observed bullying by supervisors occasionally and 2 per cent continuously.
ASIA’s member survey (2024) showed a similar outcome, as around one fifth of the respondents had observed workplace bullying in their own work community, and 14 per cent had themselves been victims of bullying (17 per cent of women and 12 per cent of men). Three per cent of supervisors reported that a member of their team had accused them of bullying, and 6 per cent of supervisors reported being bullied by a team member.
Workplace bullying is not strictly defined by law, but on the basis of case law and legal literature, it usually concerns the negative treatment of an employee in a way that is continuous and intentional and that causes the bullied person to become, in practice, defenceless or subject to negative consequences. According to this definition, occasional inappropriate statements or individual disagreements do not yet meet the criteria of workplace bullying, even though they may make someone feel bad.
Inappropriate treatment in the workplace can be a problem that occurs in the shadows and is difficult to detect or it can refer to very visible actions. Often, in the most difficult situations, one common issue is that the workplace lacks the necessary tools or willingness to investigate events and implement solutions.
The situation can be particularly difficult when the bully is a representative of the employer or a person protected by the employer for one reason or another, for example, because of their special position in the workplace.
Once an employer is made aware of a case of bullying, they are obliged under the Occupational Safety and Health Act to take appropriate measures to resolve the situation without delay.
More concrete examples of bullying and inappropriate treatment include, for example, threats of negative impacts on career development, name-calling, mocking and suggestive messages, and constant unjustified criticism of work. Similarly, it can include public embarrassment, false claims and isolation from the work community. The clearest examples of workplace bullying are physical violence or threats of violence and sexual harassment. Bullying and inappropriate treatment can also involve the misuse of the right to direct in the form of work assignments that are too trivial, the exclusion of someone from decision-making and the receipt of information, or the issuing of orders in a humiliating manner. Bullying can take the form of social exclusion by leaving someone out of a lunch group or joint coffee table discussions.
Bullying can also meet the criteria for discrimination. According to ASIA’s member survey, women, in particular, have experienced being belittled, ignored and treated with contempt because of their sex; for example, having their questions answered indirectly through a male colleague. ASIA’s Employment-related legal service has encountered instances of women being publicly talked down to or addressed as ‘girls’. Any women who raised this issue were labelled as difficult and pressured to give up their claims with threats of countermeasures.
It should be noted that even the strict use of the right to direct is not considered bullying if does not involve repeated and inappropriate behaviour or unequal treatment.
In the ASIA member survey, supervisors also reported having unfounded allegations of bullying brought against them. Unfounded allegations of bullying were reported, for example, in situations where a team member had tried to blame their supervisor for their own underperformance. This type of situation may be one in which a team member refuses instructions and the supervisor interprets this refusal as a form of bullying. The intervention of a supervisor in inappropriate behaviour presented by a team member has also been reported as bullying, as has a supervisor's request to help a co-worker in a work task. The bullying of supervisors by their subordinates also requires the employer to investigate the situation to assess which party is doing the bullying and which party is being bullied.
If the situation escalates within the workplace, it is very possible that claims of bullying will be thrown from both sides. In one example, a supervisor’s team member objected to normal work management and considered it bullying, which, in turn, made the supervisor feel bullied. This is also why it is important, when discussing such issues, to try to clarify when something genuinely constitutes bullying and when the claim of bullying is only being used for the purpose of offending another person or defending one’s own negligence. Situations are rarely strictly black and white, so it is important to hear the views of all parties involved.
Mikko Leirimaa, Labour Market Lawyer at ASIA
The article will be available also on the ASIA membership magazine 3/2026. Photo: Jani Laukkanen. In the next section of this article series, we will discuss concrete measures a victim of bullying can undertake to stop the bullying.
Do you donate your work for free? Termination of employment by agreement – but on what terms? ASIA webinar recording: The Basics of Finnish Labor Law (in the member portal)