State authorities awarded a worker 10,000 euros in moral damages after a ruling found workplace harassment by the manager of the Ibi unit. The decision came from the Social Court No. 5 of Alicante and was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected the appeal by the State Attorney General’s Office.
The TSJ-approved verdict confirmed the worker’s fundamental right to moral integrity had been violated. The employee, affiliated with Comisiones Obreras, appears as a co-plaintiff. The judge ordered immediate measures to halt the harassment and to provide protection for the employee. The ruling described the Ibi Correos unit director as creating a harmful environment that affected the worker physically, mentally, and ethically through ongoing, systematic acts of harassment and intimidation.
Complaint
The abused worker has been with Correos since January 2010 and earned fixed-non-permanent status in June 2012. He was assigned to the Ibi office in 2017 and filed a harassment complaint with the company on April 16, 2020, naming the Ibi Delivery Unit manager. A case of personal testimony was opened from the office but was closed in January 2021, with the investigation finding no harassment evidence, a stance the court later rejected, finding the complainant credible and describing the situation as mobbing.
Proof presented at trial showed a colleague stating the manager repeatedly complained about workers’ effort and that conversations at work were frequent. The witness described how the applicant was excluded, and how the manager would suddenly appear to end discussions if the complainant spoke with a co-worker or union representative. The complainant reported being asked to occupy a chair in the manager’s office and told that she would have to deal with him directly, a treatment not reported for other staff.
Tension
Another coworker, including the director, testified that the mutual tension intensified. The tension between the two was described as high and ongoing by one worker, with the atmosphere at the unit described as a constant struggle.
A unit supervisor and two other colleagues corroborated a moment when the manager placed the worker in a van, leaving her distressed and upset. The officer who testified also said he was pressured to state in writing that he had never sat next to the plaintiff, admitting only to a note about a recent dinner at work.
The Comisiones Obreras delegate affirmed that, late 2019, the office staff felt supported, but interviews with the abused worker suggested the manager blamed her for perceived job neglect despite a lack of customer backlog.
In contrast, a plant head and another witness testified that there were no records of inappropriate actions by the complainant or the supervisor.
The worker returned to work in September 2021 after a leave from June 2020. The judge noted that the manager’s attitude remained unchanged, with higher expectations and energy directed at the plaintiff’s performance than at her colleagues.
Fear
The plaintiff met with the industry head on October 7, 2021, telling him she feared going to work and that she perceived no hostility or advances from the director at that moment. The manager seemed willing to close the dispute and move forward.
A risk assessment professional prepared a psychosocial risk report that identified a high-risk dynamic in the supervisor relationship during audits.
The verdict described the worker’s anxiety-depressive disorder and cited a psychologist’s report suggesting the worker’s statements were credible. The report noted episodes where the manager ignored, yelled at, or interrupted the plaintiff, restricted her conversations with colleagues, and treated her with disdain, all contributing to reputational damage and stress. The manager contested harassment allegations, while the State Attorney’s Office framed the matter as an employment dispute; however, the internal file provided ample evidence of ongoing harassment signals. The judge highlighted signs such as controlling the plaintiff’s communications, excessive monitoring of her work, invading her personal space, giving improper directions, and using an overly harsh tone when addressing her.
ABOVE ALL, THE EMPLOYEE’S STATUS
The high court affirmed that the facts deemed proven by the Alicante court fit the definition of workplace bullying under domestic and international guidelines. The TSJ’s jurisprudence describes workplace harassment as hostile acts aimed at the victim’s dignity, reputation, or professional standing, including defamation, relentless criticism, or tasks that are improper or abusive for the employee’s role. The ruling noted a clear imbalance where the conflict with the supervisor placed the worker in a vulnerable position and where managerial actions were disproportionately harmful, sustained, and aimed at compromising health and dignity.
Therefore, the TSJ concluded the sentence under appeal was lawful and established the existence of workplace harassment alongside a broader work conflict. The decision emphasized progressive deterioration in the worker’s treatment by the supervisor, including strained communications, excessive scrutiny, and a pattern of detrimental directives, ultimately prompting psychosocial risk concerns and a formal internal evaluation that reflected ongoing risks.
In sum, the case underscores how a management style can evolve from normal supervision to a sustained pattern that harms a worker’s health and dignity, even when some witnesses dispute aspects of the testimony. The ruling illustrates the legal threshold for harassment and the protective measures courts can order to stabilize a vulnerable employee during ongoing disputes.