Four in ten UK workers say they have experienced bullying or negative behaviour at work, even though most report that their employer has a policy intended to prevent it, according to research commissioned by law firm Weightmans. The findings highlight a gap between the existence of formal workplace procedures and employees’ experience of how behaviour is handled.
Weightmans surveyed 1,000 workers for its End Bullying 2026 research. It found that 40% reported bullying or negative behaviour, while 71% said their employer had an anti-bullying policy. The combined measure covers a range of respondents’ experiences and should not be interpreted as a finding that 40% had established a legal claim for bullying.
Managers and supervisors were most frequently identified as the source of problematic behaviour, cited by 23% of respondents, compared with 19% for colleagues and 4% for clients. One in ten workers said they would not know what to do if they experienced bullying. More than a third, 38%, said they had sought mental health support as a result of bullying, according to the firm’s survey.
The research also found that 45% believed discriminatory banter existed in their workplace and 23% reported that it occurred often or sometimes. Those figures point to the difficulty of applying workplace conduct standards consistently. A policy can prohibit certain behaviour, but it is employees’ ability to raise concerns without retaliation and obtain a fair investigation that determines whether the protection works in practice.
Tina Chander, a partner at Weightmans and founder of End Workplace Bullying Day, argued that organisations need reporting routes that operate independently of the line manager where necessary. That is particularly relevant when the person named in a complaint controls the complainant’s workload, appraisal, career progression or access to senior leadership.
The firm provided an anonymised account from a former managing director who said she had experienced prolonged bullying by a chief executive. She described challenges to her authority, criticism in meetings and difficulties during an internal grievance process. She estimated that the episode cost her approximately £250,000 and several years of lost confidence. The account illustrates the possible personal and financial consequences, but remains an individual’s testimony rather than an independently adjudicated account of wrongdoing.
Complaints involving senior managers create governance as well as human resources issues. Board members may have to assess whether investigators have sufficient independence, whether witnesses have been selected fairly and whether the organisation can evidence its decisions. A procedure that appears formally compliant may still lack credibility if employees believe reporting a concern will affect their future at the company.
The distinction between bullying, harassment and discrimination also matters. England and Wales do not have a general standalone legal cause of action simply labelled workplace bullying. Depending on the circumstances, behaviour can nevertheless engage employment, discrimination, health and safety or contractual obligations. Employers should not treat the absence of a dedicated bullying claim as permission to ignore repeated intimidating conduct.
Weightmans recommends testing whether staff know how to use policies, establishing alternative complaint routes, assessing cumulative patterns of behaviour and giving investigators access to a balanced range of witnesses. It also cautions against relying on mediation where there is a substantial imbalance of power. These recommendations concentrate on how decisions are made rather than whether an employer has a document available on an intranet.
The research relies on respondents’ descriptions, so it cannot independently establish the circumstances of every reported incident or determine how many would meet legal definitions of harassment or discrimination. Even with that limitation, the contrast between high reported policy coverage and substantial negative workplace experiences suggests that employers need to measure trust in their procedures and the quality of outcomes, not merely the completion of compliance training.
You must be logged in to post a comment.