The greatest harm that could be done to the treatment of mobbing, rests on erroneous attempts to define it or conceptualize it. By ominous and no less decisive, must emphasize the contributed by Heinz Leymann, German psychologist based in Sweden, which itself coined the term mobbing. His work is that picks up the note technique preventive 476 of the Institute national safety and hygiene at work, which describes the mobbing as a situation in which one person (or on rare occasions a group of people), exerts an extreme psychological violence, systematic and recurrent (on average, once a week), and for a long period (like media(, about six months) on another person or persons in the workplace, in order to destroy the communication networks of the victim or victims, destroy your reputation, disturb the exercise of their duties and achieve that eventually that person or people end up abandoning the workplace. The characteristic features of this concept would therefore be:-the possibility of that subject aggressors or attacked are one or are multiple, although this occurs rarely. -The need that the behavior is repetitive and recurrent.
-Conduct can consist of: > the destruction of the communication networks of the victim, i.e., ensure its isolation; His imprint it has endured and suffered all labor lawyer that worked? e? the matter, as per your superlative and unjustified requirement, for practical purposes any test that could arise at trial makes insufficient. As a result have been written books and doctrinal articles at close range on the test and its difficulty in mobbing cases. Judges, the absolute absence of legal regulation of this problem and its consequences, have the only direct reference the aforementioned preventive technical note No. 476, and indirectly as it is obvious, the concept of Leymann, as a basis for the legal basis, which inexorably determine its judgment. Fortunately for progressive mode light come new theoretical models, whose greatest virtue is are formulated by personalities eminently practical. This is the case of the judge of the Social D. Ramon Gimeno Lahoz, who captured his own experience in writing, provided a series of personal conclusions, fruit of its everyday performance, thanks to which as a front row witness attends so varied casuistry posed to actual effects. Yours is only the honor of coining a new definition, applauded by all jurists who we are interested in these issues, which reads as follows:mobbing means that labor pressure tending to the mutations of a worker through their denigration.