Workplace harassment — frequently asked questions for employers

Short answerNo. Legal classification is the last stage, and an organisation has to function well before that point. If a company only acts once conduct already meets a statutory definition, it is managing damage rather than preventing it. Prevention begins at the first signal: a boundary-crossing remark, a sexist “joke”, unwanted advances.

Short answer“Workplace harassment” is an umbrella term: it can cover several kinds of conduct, and the legal classification depends on what exactly happened. Depending on the case, equal treatment rules, employment law, protection of personality rights or — in more serious cases — criminal law may apply. What they have in common is that they violate the person’s human dignity and create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive working environment. The conduct does not have to be repeated.

Hungarian law works with several partly overlapping concepts.

• Harassment under Section 10(1) of the Equal Treatment Act (Act CXXV of 2003). Conduct of a sexual or other nature that violates human dignity, is related to a protected characteristic of the person under Section 8, and has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. Protected characteristics include, among others, sex, maternity or paternity, age, state of health, trade union membership and sexual orientation.
• Sexual harassment. “Sexual harassment” is not a standalone offence under the Hungarian Criminal Code; it belongs primarily to the conceptual framework of equal treatment law. Section 10 of the Equal Treatment Act defines harassment as dignity-violating conduct “of a sexual or other nature” connected to a protected characteristic under Section 8. Since sex is itself a protected characteristic, sexual harassment directed at women typically falls within this scope. Where that connection does not exist, the conduct is still not lawful: it may amount to a violation of personality rights (Labour Code Section 9; Civil Code Sections 2:42–2:43), or a breach of the employer’s duty to cooperate and its occupational safety obligations.
• Systematic psychological pressure (mobbing). This is not always linked to a protected characteristic, but it may still be unlawful on the basis of the requirement of good faith and fair dealing (Labour Code Section 6), the protection of personality rights (Labour Code Section 9; Civil Code Sections 2:42–2:43), or the violation of human dignity.

The perpetrator does not need to have intended to harass: under the Equal Treatment Act, the purpose or effect of the conduct can establish harassment. The fact that someone “was only joking” does not in itself rule out a violation.

Short answerConflict and harassment are not the same, but the dividing line is not about whether the parties are “equals”. What matters for harassment is the nature, purpose or effect of the conduct and — for the purposes of the Equal Treatment Act — its connection to a protected characteristic. A power or dependency imbalance is often present and is an important risk factor, but it is not in itself a legal element of harassment.

The distinction matters because different interventions are appropriate. Where harassment is suspected, safety, protection of the person affected and impartial fact-finding come first; conflict-resolution tools are an option only where they do not replace the investigation and do not place a burden on the person affected.

Short answerSexual harassment is not in itself a standalone offence under the Hungarian Criminal Code. Some more serious forms may, depending on the conduct and the circumstances, meet the statutory definition of offences such as sexual coercion, indecent exposure or harassment. The term “sexual harassment” has no separate general criminal definition; in equal treatment law, however, harassment is an independent legal concept.

This distinction matters in practice because three independent levels are involved, and they are often conflated.

The three levels are not preconditions for one another. Conduct can amount to workplace sexual harassment even where it is not criminally prosecutable — and the employer’s duty applies in that case too. There is no need to wait for criminal proceedings before the organisation acts.

Harassment under Section 222 of the Criminal Code is also not the same as workplace sexual harassment: it concerns repeated disturbing, threatening or intimidating conduct, and can be committed in cases that are not sexual in nature.

Short answerAn employer cannot simply disregard a signal of harassment that comes to its attention. Depending on the circumstances, it may be required to take steps to protect the employee, to ensure a safe working environment, to manage risks and to have the matter properly investigated. Where equal treatment has been breached, failure to act may itself constitute a violation.

Duties on the employer

• Equal treatment throughout employment — Labour Code Section 12, and Equal Treatment Act Sections 5 and 21. This covers recruitment, pay, promotion, training and termination.
• A working environment that does not endanger health and is safe — Labour Code Section 51, and Section 54 of Act XCIII of 1993 on occupational safety: risk assessment must also extend to psychosocial risks. That concept is defined in Section 87(1H) of the same Act.
• Good faith, fair dealing and cooperation — Labour Code Section 6.
• Respect for the employee’s personality rights — Labour Code Section 9; Civil Code Sections 2:42–2:43.
• An internal whistleblowing system where at least 50 people are employed — as a general rule under Act XXV of 2023. The Act also imposes obligations on certain categories of employer regardless of headcount.

The shared burden of proof

Where a case falls within the scope of the Equal Treatment Act, special evidentiary rules apply. The applicant must make certain facts probable — including the disadvantage suffered and the protected characteristic — after which the burden of proof shifts as set out in the Act (Equal Treatment Act, Section 19).

The practical consequence: without a documented procedure, an investigation record and training documentation, the employer will find it harder to discharge the burden that falls on it. Documentation here is not mere administration; it also protects the employer.

Short answerIf you employ at least 50 people under an employment relationship, then as a general rule yes. Under Act XXV of 2023 an internal whistleblowing system must be set up; organisations employing at least 50 but no more than 249 people may establish one jointly. The Act also imposes obligations on certain categories of employer regardless of headcount.

What the system has to be able to do

• Receive reports in writing and orally.
• Acknowledge receipt to the person reporting within 7 days.
• Investigate as quickly as possible, and at the latest within 30 days of receipt. In particularly justified cases this may be extended, with simultaneous notice to the person reporting, but the investigation may not exceed three months.
• Protect the personal data of the person reporting and of the person concerned by the report.
• Protect the person reporting against retaliation.

Having a whistleblowing system does not replace a harassment procedure. A harassment case calls for different handling than, say, an invoicing irregularity: a prepared hearing that does not burden the person affected, immediate protective measures where needed, no confrontation, and a decision on whether the designated investigator can be impartial at all. The internal whistleblowing system under Act XXV of 2023 and the employer’s harassment or complaints procedure serve different purposes and may operate under different rules; they should therefore not automatically be treated as substitutes for one another.

Short answerThe employer’s first task is not to decide straight away whether the person reporting “is right”. It is to make sure the report is received properly, that necessary protective measures are taken, that the facts are established impartially, and that the person reporting suffers no disadvantage for having spoken up. The classification comes at the end of the process, not the beginning.

The first 48 hours

1. Receive the report; do not classify it. Do not ask whether they are “sure”, and do not immediately ask for evidence. Record what the person said, in their own words where possible.
2. Clarify what they want. Information, an informal resolution, or a formal procedure? This shapes the next step, but does not tie the employer’s hands if the report is serious.
3. Assess immediate risk. Do they work together daily, is there a reporting line between them, is there a risk of retaliation or repetition?
4. Decide who may investigate. If the impartiality of the designated person could be questioned, appoint someone else.
5. Explain the process. What happens next, over what period, and who they can turn to in the meantime.

What not to do: do not move the person reporting as a “temporary solution”, do not sit the parties down together, and do not communicate the fact of the investigation to the wider organisation before it closes.

Short answerThe investigator should be chosen on impartiality, not seniority. An internal investigation is credible where the investigator is not in a reporting or interest relationship with either party, is trained to conduct such hearings, and is not influenced by what would be convenient for the organisation.

When an external investigator is warranted

• Where the person named as the perpetrator holds a leadership position, particularly a managing director or owner.
• Where the head of HR is involved, or where HR and senior management openly disagree on how to handle the case.
• Where the organisation is small and everyone is connected to everyone in some way.
• Where the matter has already gone outside the organisation, or authority or court proceedings are a realistic prospect.
• Where there has been a similar case before and its handling left a crisis of trust behind.

An external investigator does not take employment-law decisions: they hand over findings on the facts, and the decision remains the employer’s.

Short answerIt is advisable to take the investigation out of the organisational unit reporting to that manager. Where the person named is the head of HR, the managing director or an owner, an internal investigation can hardly be seen as credible — an external, independent investigator is warranted. Protective measures should primarily affect the person named, not the person reporting.

“We’ll move them to another team temporarily, until things are clarified” — this sounds well-intentioned, but in practice it disadvantages the person affected and sends a clear message to the organisation: those who speak up are the ones who get moved.

Where separation is warranted, it is the working arrangements of the person named who should be adjusted for the duration of the investigation.

Short answerThere is no general rule requiring confrontation in every workplace harassment case. We do not use it in harassment cases and do not recommend it. The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts, not to produce an agreement between the parties; those involved should therefore, as a rule, be heard separately and in safe conditions.

The reflex to “sit down and talk it through” can be appropriate in conflict resolution, but in a harassment case it can cause harm. This is one of the most common well-intentioned procedural mistakes.

Why we hold this as a professional position

• The purpose of an investigation is fact-finding, not agreement. The outcome of mediation is a settlement, which can obscure the question of responsibility.
• The person affected can rarely decline a proposed joint meeting freely where the other party is their manager. Apparent voluntariness is therefore not genuine voluntariness.
• Article 48 of the Istanbul Convention prohibits mandatory alternative dispute resolution — including mediation — in the violent cases within its scope. Hungary signed but has not ratified the Convention, so it does not in itself create a binding legal obligation in Hungary. We treat this rule as a professional standard.

Where the person affected themselves initiates a facilitated conversation, that is a different situation. Even then, only after the investigation has closed — and never as a substitute for it.

Short answerWhatever later demonstrates that the organisation acted properly: the arrival and content of the report, the steps taken and when, the hearings, the findings and the reasons for them, and the information given after closure. Documentation here is not administration; it also protects the employer.

• The date, form and content of the report.
• The immediate risk assessment and the protective measures taken, with reasons.
• The appointment of the investigator and the reasons for it, particularly as regards impartiality.
• The hearings: who, when, in what circumstances, and what they said.
• The findings and the evidence supporting them.
• The measure taken and how it was communicated to those involved.
• The steps taken to prevent retaliation, and follow-up after closure.

The same data protection rules apply to these records as to the report itself: restricted access, a defined retention period, and logging.

Short answerThere is no general statutory deadline for receiving an internal report. Several other deadlines do run in the background, however, and they shape the employer’s exposure: procedural deadlines under Act XXV of 2023, the limitation period for the employee’s employment-law claims, and the time available to challenge a termination.

The practical consequence: documentation is necessary even where the matter is closed internally. The burden of proof can reach the employer years later.

Short answerRetaliation is rarely overt: not dismissal, but slow attrition — work taken away, exclusion from decisions, declining appraisals. Protection is therefore not a matter of promises; it has to become measurement. Record the position before the report, and keep watching after closure to see whether anything has changed.

• Record the position as at the time of the report: scope of work, appraisals, participation in decisions, grade.
• Name a person responsible for monitoring the situation of the person reporting after closure — typically at three and six months.
• Any adverse measure affecting the person reporting in the period after closure must be separately justified.
• Treat any report of retaliation as a separate matter, not as part of the original report.

Act XXV of 2023 prohibits adverse measures against a person reporting, in connection with lawful reports within its scope. The Equal Treatment Act separately regulates retaliation where a person who raises an objection, brings proceedings or participates in them because of a breach of equal treatment suffers a detriment.

Retaliation can be a separate violation even where the original report ultimately proves unfounded.

Short answerThe fact that a report ultimately proves unfounded does not in itself make it bad faith. Protection for the person reporting under Act XXV of 2023 does, however, require the conditions set out in the Act to be met. A knowingly false, bad-faith report can carry legal consequences.

Fair process looks in both directions.

• Protection of the person affected. A report is not evidence in itself, but neither is it an accusation. During the investigation it is not appropriate to place the person affected under evidentiary pressure.
• Due process and the right to respond. The person reported must have the opportunity to learn the allegations made against them, to state their position and to submit evidence. Confidentiality of the investigation must be maintained, but its timing and scope must be determined on the basis of legal, data protection and investigative considerations.

The right answer is therefore not to pre-screen reports, but to run a fair process for both parties.

Short answerIt is worth receiving and recording an anonymous signal, but it matters to distinguish between an internal whistleblowing report under Act XXV of 2023 and the organisation’s other complaint channels. Within the statutory system, substantive investigation of an anonymous report may be omitted in certain cases. From an organisational perspective, however, it is worth recording and assessing the signal even where the Act does not require investigation.

• Record the signal and look for a pattern. One anonymous report is little on its own; three from the same unit is data.
• Take targeted measures that are not aimed at an individual: risk assessment, team-level training, leadership support in the area concerned.
• Do not launch a hunt to identify the person reporting. That is the fastest way to ensure nobody in the organisation ever reports anything again.

Short answerA harassment report contains personal data and often special category data as well — for example on health or sex life. Access must be limited to those who genuinely need it. The identity of the person reporting must be protected in line with the applicable data protection and whistleblower protection rules; the purpose, legal basis, access arrangements and retention period of the processing must be determined in advance.

• Extend your privacy notice with a section covering the reporting system.
• Narrow access rights, assign them to named individuals, and log access.
• Record how long the documents are kept and when they are deleted.
• The data protection rights of the person reported must also be ensured. The timing and scope of that information may, however, be affected by the applicable data protection and whistleblower protection rules and by the need to protect the effectiveness of the investigation.

Short answerFailure to act can cause harm from four directions: authority and court proceedings, employment-law obligations, measurable organisational losses, and reputational and ESG exposure. The third is often the most expensive — and the one nobody calculates.

Short answerA one-off training session is not enough on its own, and a policy that exists only on paper certainly is not. Prevention works where four elements are present together: leadership commitment, a short and clear policy, a functioning and safe reporting route, and regular training built on practical scenarios.

1. Leadership commitment. Not a statement, but behaviour. An organisation learns more from what a leader tolerates than from what the policy says.
2. A short, understandable policy. With concrete examples of what is not acceptable. A long code of ethics that nobody reads is also weak as legal protection.
3. More than one reporting route. At least two, of which at least one bypasses the direct line manager.
4. Regular training with scenario practice. Not learning definitions, but practising specific wording: what do I say when this happens.
5. Measurement. Regular psychosocial risk assessment. This is also a statutory expectation (Occupational Safety Act, Section 54).

Short answerBecause the consequences show up at work: in absences, loss of concentration, declining performance, turnover. The employer does not investigate intimate partner violence and does not intervene in private life. It prepares to recognise the signs that are visible at work, to support the person with the tools it has, and to refer them to appropriate professional help where needed.

There is also a point that is rarely made: the workplace is often the only institution the person is in regular, daily contact with. According to the Eurostat EU-GBV survey, only 15.7% of Hungarian women who experienced intimate partner violence turned to a healthcare or social institution, a victim support service or the police — among the lowest rates in the European Union. So they do speak, just not to the system.

In addition, the employer’s duties towards its own employee — a safe working environment and the management of psychosocial risks (Labour Code Section 51; Occupational Safety Act Section 54) — apply even where the source of the risk comes from outside.

Short answerThere is no sign from which anything can be concluded with certainty, and it is not a manager’s job to diagnose. What matters is the pattern: where several signs appear together, persistently, and differently from how the person previously functioned, it is reasonable for a manager to ask carefully whether they are all right.

• Unexpected, unexplained absences or frequent lateness from a previously reliable colleague.
• A striking volume of calls or messages from the same person during working hours; the colleague visibly tenses at them.
• A partner who repeatedly turns up at the workplace or checks where the colleague is.
• Explanations for injuries that shift or don’t quite hold.
• Gradual withdrawal from the team and from shared activities.
• Financial signs: no access to their own salary, asking for pay to be sent to a different account, requesting loans.
• Loss of concentration, fluctuating performance, tiredness suggesting disturbed sleep.

These signs can have other causes. A manager’s task is not to establish what is happening, but to signal that it has been noticed and that there is somewhere to turn.

Short answerThe aim is not disclosure, but leaving the door open. A single conversation rarely leads to someone telling their story, and that is not a failure: people often need several attempts before they decide. What a manager can offer is the message that it has been noticed, that they are believed, and that seeking help will not affect their work.

What you can say

• “I’ve noticed things have been harder lately. I don’t want to pry — I just want you to know you can talk to me.”
• “If there’s anything I can do from the work side — schedule, working from home, leave — tell me.”
• “Whatever you tell me won’t affect how you’re seen here or your work.”

What to avoid

• “Why don’t you just leave?” — the most common and the most damaging question. The period of leaving is the most dangerous.
• “Are you sure you’re not misreading it?”
• “If I were you…” — the person affected knows the risks of their situation; an outsider does not.
• Do not promise confidentiality you cannot keep.
• Do not contact the partner, and do not initiate a joint conversation.

The conversation is best held somewhere quiet and private, at a time when the person does not have to walk straight back into a room full of colleagues.

Short answerMore than most organisations realise — and they generally cost nothing. Within the employment relationship an employer can offer something no other institution can: predictable income, a safe daily structure, and a place the abuser cannot follow them into.

• Flexible working: adjusting hours, working from home — or ending it, where home is the dangerous place.
• Leave and time off: for administrative matters, court hearings, medical appointments, sorting out housing.
• Workplace security: access control, briefing reception, moving a workstation, accompaniment to the car park.
• Protecting contact details: changing a company phone number, removing the person’s details from public lists, screening calls.
• Financial security: paying salary into a different bank account, an advance, changing the delivery address for payslips.
• Referral: prepared links to crisis services, legal support and psychologists.

Importantly, these should be available under a procedure agreed in advance, not as individual exceptions. If every case depends on a manager’s goodwill on the day, the system is not predictable and people will not dare to ask.

Short answerThis has to be prepared for in advance, not improvised in the moment. A workplace is somewhere the person is at a predictable time in a predictable place, which is why abusers often come there. The answer is a simple protocol agreed in advance, known to reception and to immediate colleagues.

1. Agree in advance with the person affected: who may be let through to them, who may not, and what should happen if the person turns up anyway.
2. Brief those working on access control — to the extent necessary, with the person’s consent, without sharing details of their private life.
3. Agree a signal for situations where they need help but cannot say so openly.
4. A clear rule on when the police are called: threats, unauthorised entry, breach of a restraining order.
5. Where a restraining order is in force, a copy with the security team, with the person’s consent.

It is worth involving the person affected in designing the protocol: they know the risk best, and being involved gives back some of the control that abuse takes away.

Short answerThis is the hardest situation, and more common than people assume — many couples work in the same place. Here the employer is not dealing with a private matter: it is taking care of its own employee’s safety within the workplace. A private relationship does not make workplace safety a private matter.

• Separate the place of work, the hours and the reporting line so that contact is not unavoidable.
• The burden of separation should not fall on the person affected: do not move them “for the sake of peace”.
• Check whether there is a reporting relationship between them — if so, it must be ended.
• Check whether the other party can access the person’s data, schedule or contact details through internal systems.
• If harassing or threatening conduct also occurs within the workplace, that is a separate employment matter and must be handled under the harassment procedure.

The employer does not decide who is right in a relationship. It does decide whether the workplace remains a safe place.

Short answerWe build organisational capability: training, risk assessment, procedures and internal communication. We also take on expert work: independent external investigation, expert opinions and support in handling individual cases. We do not provide legal representation, we do not conduct authority proceedings, and we are not a crisis service. Where those are needed, we will say who to turn to.

What we take on

• Training, professional workshops and sessions for leaders, HR and employees, with scenario practice.
• Psychosocial and harassment risk assessment, organisational diagnosis.
• Designing a harassment procedure and a reporting channel.
• Independent external investigation — particularly where the person named as the perpetrator holds a leadership position, or where the impartiality of an internal investigation could be questioned.
• Expert opinion on the professional adequacy of a procedure, a completed investigation or an organisational practice.
• Support in handling individual cases: planning the steps, structuring the hearings, and the considerations for documentation.
• Review and revision of the arrangements in place.

What we do not take on

• We do not take individual clients. Our clients are organisations; investigations and expert opinions are carried out on the employer’s instruction.
• Legal representation — on neither the employer’s nor the employee’s side.
• Authority or court proceedings; we have no such powers.
• Crisis care. In an acute situation the routes available in Hungary are 112, and the OKIT and NANE helplines.
• Taking the employer’s decision. We provide the findings of an investigation; the employment-law decision remains the employer’s.

Short answerPrimarily those employing at least 50 people, those with a significant proportion of women or a strong hierarchy, and those whose staff deal with clients, guests or patients. It also makes sense for smaller organisations, typically in the form of a workshop and a simplified procedure.

• Employers with more than 50 staff, where an internal reporting system is already a statutory obligation.
• Companies under supplier or investor expectations that need substance for ESG reporting.
• Client-facing areas, retail, hospitality, healthcare — where harassment can also come from outside.
• Education, healthcare and social institutions, where hierarchy and vulnerability come together.
• Organisations where a case has already occurred and its handling left a crisis of trust behind.

Short answerWe do not work with list prices, because the scope of the work is determined by the size of the organisation and the starting point. The same programme means a different effort where a procedure already exists and where we start from nothing. The first step is therefore always a free assessment, after which we provide an itemised proposal. Requesting a proposal carries no obligation.

What affects the proposal

• The number of employees and the number of sites.
• Whether a procedure and reporting channel already exist, or we start from nothing.
• How many modules are requested: risk assessment, procedure, leadership training, employee training, reporting channel, review.
• Whether this is a single workshop or a full rollout.
• Whether documentation is needed for ESG reporting or a supplier audit.

If you are simply exploring and want a sense of scale: tell us your headcount and whether you already have any procedure in place. We will come back to you with an approximate scope even without a formal request for proposal.

Short answerWe do not promise calendar deadlines, because the pace depends partly on the organisation. What we can commit to is the work on our side: a workshop is one or two sessions; the assessment is processed once responses close; the first draft of the procedure follows the handover of the necessary information. The length of a full rollout depends on how quickly internal decisions are made.

A rollout falls into four stages: assessment, drafting the procedure, training and rollout, then review. The stages stand on their own, so there is no need to start everything at once.

At the start of the engagement we prepare a joint schedule setting out deadlines on both sides. This is not a formality: the most common cause of delay is that no one inside the organisation has been given ownership of the process.