The rhetorical-hermeneutic analysis of the distinction between bullying and interpersonal conflicts in the workplace

Abstract

This article examines the distinction between workplace bullying and interpersonal conflicts in the workplace through a rhetorical-hermeneutic approach to labor law. It begins with the premise that judicial activity is not limited to the application of legal rules, as it involves argumentative, cognitive, and evaluative processes in the formation of judicial decisions. Based on Aristotle’s triad of ethos, pathos, and logos, the study, as an analytical tool, examines the discursive criteria employed to legally characterize situations of psychological workplace violence. Methodologically, it adopts an integrative review of recent literature on workplace bullying, focusing on the intersection between legal argumentation theory and occupational psychology. The results indicate that courts distinguish workplace bullying from interpersonal conflict through a discursive articulation that considers the credibility of the parties (ethos), the assessment of psychological suffering (pathos), and the logical structure of the decision (logos), particularly based on criteria such as repetitiveness, duration, and the severity of the conduct. It is concluded that the rhetorical-hermeneutic perspective contributes to the conceptual refinement of the topic by highlighting that the legal characterization of workplace bullying depends not only on factual description but also on how evidence, suffering, and the credibility of the parties are discursively structured in the reasoning of the decision.