PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE AT WORK: CHALLENGES OF IDENTIFICATION AND PREVENTION

Аннотация

Psychological violence at work is increasingly recognized as a serious occupational safety, public health and human rights issue. This paper examines the legal definition, identification challenges and preventive framework of psychological violence in the workplace in Lithuania, situating the national approach within European Union and international labour standards, primarily the International Labour Organization Violence and Harassment Convention No. 190 (2019). Lithuania has rapidly built a dedicated regime as of 1 November 2022, the Labour Code expressly defined mobbing, violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment, and imposed prevention duties on employers; amendments to Article 30, in force from 1 January 2025, extended these obligations and were complemented by the binding Description of Measures to Prevent Violence and Harassment at Work (Order No. EV-221) and by stricter administrative liability under the Code of Administrative Offences. Despite this development, identification remains difficult because of the subjective nature of the conduct, broad and overlapping definitions, evidentiary problems and limited case law. The number of established breaches of Article 30 recorded by the State Labour Inspectorate rose by roughly 48% in 2025 (from 122 to 181). Drawing on doctrinal analysis, comparative literature and empirical studies of Lithuanian organizations, the paper argues that effective prevention requires not only adequate regulation but also workplace risk assessment, mandatory training, internal reporting procedures and victim assistance. The paper further examines the allocation of the burden of proof, the practical role of the State Labour Inspectorate and the Labour Disputes Commissions, emerging administrative and judicial practice, and briefly situates Lithuania’s approach against the regulatory choices made in few European Union countries. Lithuania has thus moved from a fragmented to a comprehensive regulatory model, yet implementation deficits, low awareness and limited interpretative guidance continue to undermine the protective potential of the law.