Upward Bullying at Work: UK Employer Guide 2026

Bullying at work is usually discussed as something that flows down a hierarchy, for example where a manager misuses authority or where colleagues mistreat each other. In practice, organisations are also seeing cases where employees target people in authority, undermining or intimidating them in ways that are sustained, corrosive and difficult to tackle. This is commonly described as upward bullying, sometimes also referred to as subordinate bullying.

Upward bullying can be particularly damaging because it often presents as “ordinary” challenge, personality clash or team resistance. The manager may also feel unable to raise it for fear of being judged as ineffective, oversensitive or incapable of handling their role. That combination can leave harmful behaviour unaddressed for longer than it would be in more conventional bullying scenarios, increasing legal exposure and operational risk under wider UK employment law principles.

What this article is about: This guide explains what upward bullying means in the workplace, how it differs from legitimate employee challenge or grievance activity, and where it creates legal risk for UK employers. It then sets out how to identify signs and patterns, the key UK employment law issues that can follow if the situation is mishandled, and the practical steps employers can take to investigate and resolve the problem fairly and lawfully.

Section A: What is upward bullying?

Upward bullying is not a defined legal term in UK employment law. It is a practical label used to describe a pattern of conduct where an employee, or group of employees, targets a manager or senior colleague with behaviour intended to undermine, intimidate, isolate or destabilise them. The defining feature is direction of conduct: it flows upwards toward someone who holds formal authority but is being stripped of real authority through persistent behaviour.

Upward bullying can be overt, for example open disrespect, refusal to comply with reasonable management instructions or humiliating a manager in front of others. It can also be covert, for example withholding key information, creating a “clique” that undermines leadership decisions, manipulating processes or generating an atmosphere where the manager is routinely questioned, mocked or excluded. The harm often comes less from a single event and more from the cumulative effect: a steady erosion of authority, credibility and psychological safety. This sits within the broader category of workplace bullying, even though “bullying” itself is not a standalone statutory claim.

1. Definition of upward bullying

For employer purposes, a workable definition is:

Upward bullying is repeated or sustained behaviour by an employee (or employees) that undermines a manager’s authority or wellbeing, creates a hostile working environment for the manager and interferes with their ability to perform their role.

This definition is intentionally practical. It allows HR and leadership teams to identify the pattern early and deal with it through policy and process, without needing to force the situation into a narrow legal category.

In many workplaces, upward bullying develops during periods of change, for example restructuring, performance management activity, capability processes, new leadership appointments or shifts in operational standards. It can also arise where a manager is isolated, lacks visible support from senior leadership or where informal power dynamics within a team have hardened over time.

Section A summary: Upward bullying is a real workplace risk even though it is not a statutory term. For employers, the compliance challenge is recognising when behaviour has crossed the line from ordinary challenge or resistance into sustained conduct that undermines authority, harms wellbeing and threatens organisational control.

2. How upward bullying differs from legitimate challenge, grievance activity or whistleblowing

A common employer mistake is to treat all “pushback” as bullying, or, conversely, to treat all pushback as legitimate employee voice and therefore ignore a developing pattern. The legal and practical reality is that both can be true depending on the facts.

Legitimate challenge can include employees questioning decisions, raising concerns about resources, disagreeing with priorities or giving feedback about management style. Equally, employees can lawfully raise a complaint through the organisation’s grievance procedure and the organisation is expected to respond in a fair and balanced way. Employees may also raise concerns that amount to protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and those must be handled with particular care.

Upward bullying tends to show different markers. These often include one or more of the following:

• Persistence: the behaviour is repeated and sustained rather than isolated.
• Intent and effect: the conduct appears designed to destabilise the manager or has that effect, even if intent is denied.
• Collective dynamic: the behaviour may be coordinated, encouraged or amplified by a clique, with the manager’s authority undermined in front of others.
• Process weaponisation: formal routes such as grievances may be used tactically, for example by serial complaints that are unfounded or exaggerated, aimed at keeping the manager permanently on the defensive.
• Boundary crossing: criticism becomes personal, humiliating or demeaning rather than focused on decisions or performance outcomes.

Employers should be careful not to frame grievance use itself as suspect. Employees are entitled to raise complaints and employers must not create a chilling effect where staff fear retaliation for using procedures. The compliance focus should be on evidence: whether there is a genuine complaint to investigate, whether behaviour standards have been breached and whether patterns suggest collective misconduct, manipulation or intimidation.

Section A summary: Employers should separate legitimate challenge from bullying patterns. The compliance risk is either ignoring sustained undermining behaviour because it is dressed up as “feedback”, or overreacting to ordinary challenge and creating retaliation risk.

3. Is upward bullying illegal in the UK?

Bullying is not, by itself, a standalone legal claim in the way that discrimination is. That does not mean it is low risk. Upward bullying can trigger legal liability depending on what the behaviour involves and how the employer responds.

It becomes legally actionable most commonly in these ways:

• Harassment under the Equality Act 2010, where unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic has the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
• Constructive dismissal risk, where the employer’s failure to address a bullying situation can amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, prompting resignation (subject to qualifying service in most cases).
• Unfair dismissal risk if the employer dismisses the manager (or another employee) following stress-related absence or conflict but fails to follow a fair capability or conduct process (again usually subject to qualifying service in most cases).
• Health and safety and duty of care exposure, where bullying-related stress becomes foreseeable and the employer fails to take reasonable steps to protect health and wellbeing.

These risks are not limited to “junior” staff. A manager can bring Equality Act claims, unfair dismissal claims and in appropriate circumstances constructive dismissal claims, provided eligibility and the factual thresholds are met.

Section A summary: Upward bullying is not “illegal” in itself, but it can create significant legal risk through harassment, dismissal-related claims and health and safety failures. The employer’s liability often turns on whether it responded promptly, fairly and proportionately once the issue was, or should have been, apparent.

Section B: Signs and Examples of Upward Bullying

Upward bullying rarely presents as a single dramatic confrontation. More often, it develops incrementally. A manager may initially experience what appears to be routine resistance or personality clash. Over time, however, the behaviour becomes patterned, coordinated or sustained in a way that erodes authority and creates a hostile working dynamic.

From a compliance perspective, the key question is not whether the manager feels disliked or challenged. It is whether the conduct has crossed into repeated behaviour that undermines legitimate authority, disrupts operational control or creates foreseeable harm to health and wellbeing.

1. Overt forms of upward bullying

Some upward bullying is visible and direct. This can include:

• Open refusal to comply with reasonable management instructions.
• Persistent public challenge to decisions in a way designed to embarrass or destabilise.
• Blatant disrespect, offensive language or humiliating remarks.
• Undermining the manager’s authority in front of clients or other team members.
• Coordinated non-cooperation, for example repeated failure to meet deadlines or attend meetings.

Where refusal to comply with instructions is involved, employers should assess whether the instruction was lawful and reasonable. Employees are entitled to refuse instructions that are unsafe, unlawful or outside contractual scope. However, where a direction is reasonable and within role expectations, repeated refusal may amount to misconduct or insubordination at work.

The distinction between forceful disagreement and bullying lies in persistence, tone and impact. One heated exchange does not typically constitute bullying. A pattern of targeted defiance designed to weaken leadership may.

Section B1 summary: Overt upward bullying tends to be visible and easier to evidence. It often overlaps with misconduct or insubordination and should be assessed against policy and contractual standards.

2. Covert and indirect behaviour

In many cases, upward bullying is subtle. The manager may struggle to articulate exactly what is happening, but experience a gradual loss of influence and control.

Examples can include:

• Withholding key operational information that the manager reasonably requires.
• Excluding the manager from informal discussions that shape decisions.
• Spreading rumours or gossip about competence or integrity.
• Creating informal “alliances” that resist or undermine decisions.
• Deliberate misinterpretation of instructions to make the manager appear ineffective.
• Serial or tactical complaints aimed at keeping the manager under investigation.

These behaviours can be particularly difficult to address because they may be individually minor. It is often the cumulative effect that is harmful. A single delayed email may be an oversight. A repeated pattern of selective information-sharing may be something more.

Employers should train HR and senior leaders to look for patterns rather than isolated incidents. A manager who is repeatedly excluded, contradicted or challenged in ways that appear coordinated may be experiencing upward bullying even where no single act appears serious.

Section B2 summary: Covert upward bullying is harder to detect and may require a broader, pattern-based investigation. Employers should focus on sustained dynamics rather than isolated behaviours.

3. Collective dynamics and clique behaviour

One of the distinguishing features of upward bullying is the presence of a collective dynamic. While a downward bully often relies on formal authority, upward bullying frequently relies on informal influence.

This may involve:

• A dominant team member encouraging others to resist leadership.
• A culture of private messaging or online commentary undermining decisions.
• Informal agreement not to cooperate fully with new initiatives.
• Coordinated grievances or complaints submitted in close succession.

It is important not to assume that multiple complaints automatically indicate bullying. There may be genuine, shared concerns about management style or conduct. The employer’s obligation is to investigate those concerns impartially.

However, if an investigation reveals that complaints are unfounded, exaggerated or coordinated with the aim of destabilising the manager rather than addressing legitimate issues, that conduct may itself constitute misconduct.

Employers should ensure that grievance procedures are applied neutrally. The existence of a grievance does not suspend behavioural standards. Employees remain subject to conduct rules even while raising concerns.

Section B3 summary: Collective resistance may be legitimate or may amount to coordinated bullying. Employers must investigate evidence carefully, separating valid complaints from manipulative or destabilising conduct.

4. Upward bullying and insubordination

Upward bullying often overlaps with insubordination, but the concepts are not identical.

Insubordination generally refers to a wilful refusal to obey lawful and reasonable instructions. It may be a single act and can justify disciplinary action depending on severity.

Upward bullying, by contrast, typically involves a broader pattern of behaviour aimed at undermining authority. It may include insubordination but also encompasses humiliation, exclusion, manipulation or intimidation.

When assessing conduct, employers should ask:

• Was the instruction lawful and reasonable?
• Was refusal deliberate?
• Is there a repeated pattern?
• Is there evidence of coordinated resistance?
• Has the manager’s ability to perform their role been materially affected?

This structured approach helps avoid overreaction. It also ensures that disciplinary processes remain proportionate and defensible under the ACAS Code of Practice.

Section B summary: Signs of upward bullying can be overt or subtle. Employers should focus on patterns, impact and evidence rather than personality conflict alone. Where behaviour overlaps with insubordination or misconduct, disciplinary processes may be appropriate, provided they are applied fairly and proportionately.

Section C: Legal Risks for Employers

Upward bullying becomes a legal issue not because of the label attached to it, but because of the legal consequences that can follow if the situation is mishandled. In many cases, the primary liability risk arises not from the initial conduct of employees, but from an employer’s failure to intervene, investigate or respond appropriately once concerns are raised.

Employers should assess upward bullying scenarios against five principal areas of UK employment law risk: harassment, constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and health and safety obligations.

1. Harassment under the Equality Act 2010

Harassment is defined under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 as unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. For practical guidance in workplace contexts, see harassment at work.

Protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Upward bullying may amount to unlawful harassment where the behaviour is linked to one of these characteristics. For example:

• Repeatedly mocking a manager’s age or perceived inexperience.
• Targeting a disabled manager through ridicule or exclusion.
• Undermining a manager based on sex or racial stereotypes.

The conduct does not need to be explicitly discriminatory in language. It is sufficient if it is “related to” a protected characteristic and has the prohibited effect.

When assessing the “effect” limb, tribunals consider the manager’s perception, the other circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. This matters in upward bullying cases where workplace “banter”, resistance or criticism is asserted as a defence, but the impact on the target and the context shows the environment has become hostile or degrading.

Employers are vicariously liable for harassment carried out by employees in the course of employment, unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent such conduct. This defence is specific to discrimination claims and typically requires more than having a policy on paper. It usually involves evidence of training, enforcement and active management of workplace culture.

Failure to address upward bullying that amounts to harassment can expose the organisation to uncapped compensation in the Employment Tribunal, including injury to feelings awards.

Section C1 summary: If upward bullying is linked to a protected characteristic, it may amount to unlawful harassment. Employers can be held vicariously liable unless they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable preventive steps.

2. Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal arises where an employee resigns in response to a fundamental breach of contract by the employer. Most commonly in bullying cases, this involves breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

If a manager raises concerns about sustained bullying and the employer fails to investigate, dismisses the concerns without inquiry or allows the behaviour to continue unchecked, this may amount to a repudiatory breach of contract where the failure is sufficiently serious to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence.

To bring a standard constructive unfair dismissal claim, the employee must usually have at least two years’ continuous service. However, where discrimination is involved, there is no qualifying service requirement.

The critical issue for employers is response. Tribunals will consider whether the employer:

• Took the complaint seriously.
• Investigated in a timely and impartial manner.
• Took reasonable steps to prevent further harm.
• Avoided penalising or marginalising the complainant for raising the issue.

A failure to act, or a superficial investigation, can transform a workplace conflict into a dismissal claim. Employers should also be alive to “affirmation” risk: where the manager continues working for a prolonged period without reserving their position, it may complicate a constructive dismissal argument. This does not remove the employer’s obligation to respond properly, but it does affect how disputes unfold in practice.

Section C2 summary: Ignoring or inadequately addressing upward bullying complaints can amount to breach of mutual trust and confidence, creating constructive dismissal exposure.

3. Unfair dismissal risk

In some upward bullying situations, the manager may experience stress-related absence or performance decline. If the employer then dismisses the manager on capability grounds without a fair and reasonable process, the organisation may face an unfair dismissal claim.

Employers must demonstrate:

• A potentially fair reason for dismissal (for example capability).
• A reasonable investigation and medical evidence where relevant.
• Consideration of alternatives to dismissal.
• Procedural fairness consistent with general principles of reasonableness, including giving the employee a proper opportunity to respond.

Where the situation also involves disciplinary allegations or a grievance process, the ACAS Code of Practice is particularly relevant, and failure to follow it can increase compensation by up to 25%. Even in pure ill-health capability cases, employers are expected to act fairly and proportionately.

Employers should also avoid reacting defensively by dismissing the manager because of team complaints without a balanced and evidence-based investigation. Removing the manager without proper scrutiny of underlying dynamics can expose the business to liability.

Section C3 summary: Where upward bullying leads to stress, absence or performance concerns, dismissal must be handled carefully and procedurally fairly to avoid unfair dismissal claims.

4. Disability discrimination risk

Stress, anxiety or depression arising from workplace bullying can amount to a disability under the Equality Act 2010 if the condition has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

“Long-term” generally means lasting or likely to last 12 months or more.

If a manager develops such a condition, the employer may owe a duty to make reasonable adjustments. This could include:

• Adjusting workload.
• Providing mediation or support.
• Temporarily reallocating certain responsibilities.
• Addressing team dynamics more proactively.

Employers must also avoid discrimination arising from disability, for example penalising absence that is a consequence of a protected condition without objective justification. In most cases, liability in disability discrimination depends on the employer having actual or constructive knowledge of the disability, which is why documentation, occupational health input and careful handling of disclosures are important.

For related compliance guidance, see disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments.

Failure to consider disability implications significantly increases litigation risk, as discrimination claims do not require two years’ service and compensation is uncapped.

Section C4 summary: If upward bullying results in a qualifying mental health condition, the employer may owe reasonable adjustment duties and face disability discrimination exposure if these are ignored.

5. Health and safety and duty of care obligations

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of employees. This includes psychological health.

Where workplace stress becomes foreseeable, employers must take reasonable steps to prevent harm. Liability in negligence depends on foreseeability and the reasonableness of the employer’s response. If a manager repeatedly reports bullying behaviour and shows signs of stress, the risk may become foreseeable and require intervention.

Employers should also consider stress risk assessments under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 where organisational factors indicate systemic risk. Practical compliance context is covered in stress at work.

Claims for psychiatric injury in negligence are less common than tribunal claims, and typically require a recognised medical condition rather than ordinary workplace pressure. Even so, foreseeable stress combined with inaction can increase exposure across dismissal and discrimination risks.

Section C summary: The legal risk of upward bullying lies less in the label and more in employer response. Harassment, constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and health and safety obligations are the primary exposure areas. A proactive, documented and impartial response is the strongest defence.

Section D: How to Manage Upward Bullying Lawfully

Upward bullying presents a leadership challenge as much as a legal one. Employers must strike a careful balance between protecting legitimate employee voice and preventing sustained conduct that undermines authority and harms wellbeing. The key is process discipline: early recognition, impartial investigation and proportionate intervention.

1. Take complaints seriously and act promptly

Managers may be reluctant to report upward bullying for fear of appearing incapable. Employers should create a culture where concerns raised by managers are treated with the same seriousness as those raised by junior staff.

Once a concern is raised, employers should:

• Acknowledge the complaint formally.
• Clarify the allegations.
• Consider whether interim steps are needed.
• Appoint an impartial investigator.

Failure to respond promptly can allow patterns to become entrenched and increase legal exposure, particularly if stress-related harm becomes foreseeable.

Section D1 summary: Early and formal acknowledgement of concerns reduces both operational disruption and legal risk.

2. Investigate impartially and evidence patterns

Upward bullying cases often hinge on patterns rather than isolated incidents. Investigators should examine:

• Emails, messages and meeting records.
• Witness accounts from multiple team members.
• Grievance history and outcomes.
• Any prior management or performance concerns.

The investigation must remain neutral. Employers should avoid presuming that either the manager or the team is “at fault” before evidence is assessed. If grievances are involved, they should be handled under the appropriate procedure, but behaviour standards must still be enforced where misconduct is identified. For process guidance, see grievance procedure.

Employers should take care not to penalise employees merely for raising complaints. Disciplinary action should only be considered where there is evidence that complaints were knowingly false, malicious or part of a broader pattern of misconduct, and the employer has applied a fair process. Mishandling this area can create separate legal risk, including claims framed as victimisation under the Equality Act where discrimination complaints are involved.

Section D2 summary: A structured, evidence-based investigation protects fairness and supports defensible outcomes.

3. Use disciplinary procedures appropriately

Where evidence demonstrates misconduct, disciplinary action may be justified. This may range from informal warnings through to dismissal in serious cases, depending on severity and prior history.

Employers should ensure that:

• The conduct falls within policy definitions of misconduct.
• The ACAS Code of Practice is followed.
• Sanctions are proportionate and consistent with past practice.

Refusal to comply with reasonable instructions, coordinated undermining behaviour or harassment may justify formal action. However, disciplinary responses must not be retaliatory against employees for raising genuine concerns. Where the misconduct involves refusal to follow reasonable instructions or challenging authority through defiance, the organisation should consider whether insubordination at work is also in issue.

For practical guidance on structuring investigations, hearings and outcomes, see disciplinary procedure.

Section D3 summary: Disciplinary action is lawful where supported by evidence, but must remain proportionate and compliant with procedural standards.

4. Support the manager

Even though the target is in a leadership role, they remain entitled to support and protection. Employers should consider:

• Occupational health input where stress is evident.
• Mediation in appropriate cases.
• Temporary adjustments to reporting lines.
• Clear backing from senior leadership.

Visible organisational support can help stabilise authority and prevent further erosion of leadership credibility. Depending on circumstances, the employer may also need to consider wellbeing interventions and support pathways, including an occupational health referral and wider employee wellbeing measures, particularly where there are indicators of ongoing stress or mental health impact.

Section D4 summary: Supporting the manager is both a wellbeing obligation and a strategic intervention to restore effective governance.

5. Prevent recurrence through policy and culture

Prevention is ultimately more effective than reaction. Employers should:

• Ensure anti-bullying policies cover conduct in all directions.
• Provide training on respectful workplace behaviour.
• Clarify expectations around challenge and dissent.
• Reinforce behavioural standards consistently across hierarchy levels.

Clear standards reduce ambiguity about what constitutes robust professional challenge versus unacceptable undermining behaviour. It may also be helpful to align intervention with broader organisational approaches to workplace conflict, particularly where the team dynamic is driving repeated disruption.

Section D summary: Managing upward bullying requires early recognition, neutral investigation, proportionate discipline and cultural clarity. Legal risk is minimised when employers apply consistent and documented processes.

Upward Bullying FAQs

What is upward bullying?

Upward bullying is repeated behaviour by an employee or group of employees that undermines, intimidates or destabilises a manager or senior colleague.

Can employees bully managers?

Yes. Authority does not immunise managers from mistreatment. Bullying can flow in any direction within a workplace hierarchy.

Is upward bullying illegal in the UK?

Bullying itself is not a standalone legal claim. However, if linked to a protected characteristic it may amount to harassment under the Equality Act 2010. It can also give rise to constructive dismissal, unfair dismissal or disability discrimination claims depending on the facts.

Is upward bullying the same as insubordination?

Not necessarily. Insubordination usually refers to refusal to follow lawful and reasonable instructions. Upward bullying typically involves a broader pattern of undermining conduct, though the two can overlap.

Can a manager claim constructive dismissal because of bullying?

Yes, if the employer’s failure to address sustained bullying amounts to a fundamental breach of mutual trust and confidence and the manager resigns in response, subject to qualifying service in most cases.

What should employers do if grievance procedures are being misused?

Employers must investigate grievances impartially. If complaints are shown, on evidence, to be knowingly false or malicious, that conduct may justify disciplinary action, provided procedural fairness is maintained and employees are not penalised merely for raising concerns.

Does upward bullying create disability discrimination risk?

Potentially. If bullying leads to a qualifying mental health condition, the employer may owe reasonable adjustments and must avoid discrimination arising from disability.

Conclusion

Upward bullying is not a defined legal concept, but it is a genuine organisational and compliance risk. It can erode leadership authority, damage morale and, if mishandled, expose employers to harassment, dismissal-related and discrimination claims.

The decisive factor in most cases is not whether conflict exists, but how the employer responds once patterns become apparent. A structured, impartial and documented approach protects both individuals and the organisation. Employers that combine clear behavioural standards with consistent enforcement are best placed to prevent upward bullying from escalating into legal liability.

Glossary

Useful Links