Dariusz F. accused of bullying an employee presents his own version of events

At the hearing on 22 February 2022, the accused presented his version for more than two and a half hours. The prosecutor spoke afterwards.

Statement by the accused, Dariusz F.

I wanted to say all this, Your Honour. I helped Ewa (the injured party—the editor’s note) many times. It is not true that I arranged her job as a result of winning the 2014 election. That is what she testified. She had really been asking for this job for a long time, since 2015, perhaps earlier. She expressed such a request, and I took it to heart. I have always helped people, whether family or strangers. Whenever I could, I helped. In February 2015, there was an opportunity to employ Ms Ewa at the cemetery flower shop as a general worker. She performed maintenance work at the cemetery and learned how to make wreaths and bouquets. She worked there until the end of 2016.

In 2016, the president of MZGK was looking for someone to work at the Municipal Market in the subsidiary of the Municipal Services Department. I thought of Ewa, because she had also heard about the offer. We spoke, and I could see in her eyes that she was very interested. After I mentioned her to the president, she happily went to work at the Municipal Market. I knew she wanted to work there longer; I thought she would build a career there. Although she went there as a replacement, from my conversations with the president I concluded that she would stay there permanently or for a longer period. I was surprised when things did not work out for her after four months. I asked what had happened, but the president did not want to say. It was a time of reorganisation at MZGK, with a lot of work and problems. I asked Ewa to return to the cemetery because she had nowhere to go back to. On 17 August 2017, Ewa declared that she wanted to move with me to the new company (in 2017, the municipal company MZGK ceased managing the cemetery, and the Municipal Housing Management Department took over. Dariusz F. became the new-old head of the cemetery on 1 January 2018—the editor’s note). Once again, I extended a helping hand to this woman.

In 2017, the president of MZGK ordered a list of people to work at the cemetery in MZGM to be created (from 2018—the editor’s note). On 1 January 2018, all the employees on the list knew that they would work with me and that I would be the manager. It was mutual consent to cooperate, and relations were not bad. The employees were not happy about the move, but they had the comfort of transferring automatically, with their benefits and employment contracts preserved. I was the only one who did not have that comfort. I was a councillor, and as a councillor I could not transfer automatically, so MZGM director Kazimierz Łomotowski signed a fixed-term contract with me. I had to pass an examination for a civil-service position, and only after the preparatory period did I obtain an indefinite-term contract on 21 June 2018. That was when I became sure I would be working there permanently.

Ms Ewa wanted to work with me. It is not true that there had been problems in our relationship earlier, because why would she have decided to work with someone who had previously persecuted her?

The years 2017–2018 were the most difficult period because we were transferring one company under another. Everything was new. We were implementing new systems, the number of funerals was increasing, and there was a shortage of staff. In this situation, I offered Ewa a job in the office (a move from the position of general worker to office worker—the editor’s note), and once again I saw that spark in her eyes, just as when she wanted to go to work at the Municipal Market. I was convinced that she was very eager to work in the office. There was a family gathering, and Ewa was supposed to start work on 1 May 2018.

She was supposed to come on 1 May, but she came on 6 May because there was a pilgrimage trip. She had planned the trip in autumn 2017 and wanted to take leave. I told her then that if it was possible to take leave, she would get it. She forced the leave when there were a great many problems at work. She decided to go precisely during the period when she had to study. We exchanged words; this was family. I am not in the habit of shouting, but I have had reflux for many years and sometimes have to speak more loudly. I said: How do you imagine going away when you are supposed to start studying? That is not how things work anywhere; I have never heard of such a thing.. In the end, I gave her the leave and let it go because she said she had paid a deposit. I am a religious person too, although I do not flaunt it. I said: Go on this holiday, come back quickly and safely, and begin the preparatory period. There was no shouting, no spite, just an ordinary conversation..

In 2018, we were introducing GDPR rules at the company. Ewa made GDPR-related mistakes. I supposedly shouted at her and bullied her. That did not happen at all. As manager, I was responsible for securing personal data and I supervised this. It is not true that I threatened to fire her. Would I fire an employee I had hired myself? That makes no sense.

From autumn (2018—the editor’s note), I said that there were problems with Ewa and that she worked slowly. But all right, she was learning the job; we would not burden her with additional duties.

On 10 September 2018, Ewa went to Karpacz with her son. There would have been no problem with her trip, but a few days earlier I learned that my wife was also due to have surgery on 10 September and that I was supposed to look after her. Ewa and I exchanged words. At first it was a normal conversation, then she was right, I was right, and it became a loud exchange. There were no insults. In the end, I gave in, my daughter went with my wife to the operation, and Ewa went to Karpacz with her son. I do not know what she told her husband, but it may have influenced the fact that her husband, who is also my cousin, called me.

On 14 October 2018, before the election, I received a call from my cousin, who shouted at me. He began swearing and insulting me. I was shocked because we had never spoken like that. I understood it to mean that I was persecuting Ewa and that if I did not leave her alone, he would destroy me. I asked him to meet so we could explain the misunderstanding. My cousin told me he would destroy me; I just did not know why. The election was beginning, and my cousin also said that if Mayor Roman lost, you would mean nothing and I would “lose my position”.

There are two more important facts. The director (Kazimierz Łomotowski—the editor’s note) belittled me. I told him that I knew from mutual acquaintances that he was belittling me, and he apologised. There was also another situation, in June 2018, when Ms Ewa filed a complaint against me. The director came to me and demanded that I return the cameras. I remember it as if it were today; we argued in front of people. It later turned out that the cameras were at MZGM, and everyone apologised to me except the director. After these incidents, I have no doubt that removing me from my position was a planned operation. Unfortunately, Ewa was used for this, I think; she was made out to be bullied, and I was made out to be the bully.

This whole matter brought me to the situation I am in. I am unemployed and not entitled to benefits. I was publicly discredited. I do not recall anyone in this city ever being subjected to such a media lynching.

I was taking antidepressants and did not give comments to the press because I was unable to. All those media articles were brutally repeated every month and a half. Ewa disclosed the documents of the anti-bullying committee. As a result of these persistent, long-running reports appearing on Bolec.Info, a tragedy occurred: my wife could not bear it when she read yet again what kind of person I was, and she collapsed. I followed the ambulance to Zgorzelec and will never forget it. Thank God she recovered. She could not accept that close family, whom we used to meet for coffee after church, could do something like that to me. They made me the bully, while that woman became the persecuted one. I will also say something about my mother. When my late mother read those newspapers—because Bolec.Info newspapers are published every two weeks—and read them, I have no doubt it finished her off.

I am a public figure. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Diocese of Legnica, I received a medal from the bishop. I received a call from the president of the Polish Funeral Chamber, who was outraged by the situation because he presented the Bolesławiec cemetery as a model in Poland during training sessions. He wrote a letter of reference on his own initiative, describing the relationships at the cemetery.

I disagree with these charges. I did not incite anyone to forge signatures, and I tried to demonstrate that. I did not psychologically torment this woman. I tried to show that it resulted from mistakes, not personal relationships. No one wanted to listen to me when I said she had made mistakes, and I paid an enormous price for it. Please take into account what I have said today.

Closing argument by prosecutor Sebastian Woźniak

I want to say immediately, Your Honour, that the testimonial evidence is not biased, as the defence suggested, and that only witnesses who testified against the accused were heard. That is not the case. The testimony of Mr Bakalarz, Kołodziej and Drzewiecki should be mentioned. Their testimony is favourable to the accused. There is testimony from an employee who made a mistake, told the accused about it, and he did not shout and, as she testified, behaved in a way she had not expected. Exactly, Your Honour. Usually, witnesses expected negative behaviour and comments from the manager, ones that were inappropriate in relations between an employer and an employee.

It is not as though the accused had waited all these years for an opportunity to speak. He spoke many times. What the accused is presenting is merely an interpretation of the evidence presented in this case. And the defence is unable to explain how it is that the testimony of the other witnesses is consistent, coherent, logical and mutually complementary. When assessing the accused’s explanations, it is impossible to conclude that they contradict the charges.

The accused minimises his behaviour. The defence comes down to the claim that the injured party made mistakes, violated GDPR regulations and made mistakes; this is repeated like a mantra. Your Honour, I dare say that everyone makes mistakes; only people who do nothing make none. But nowhere does it say that people who make mistakes should be bullied.

This cannot be done, and the accused should understand that: the mistakes the injured party admits to making should not, in reality, trigger such a reaction from the accused. What the accused did violates every principle of proper conduct. Everyone has dignity, and everyone has the right to be treated properly; the injured party expected that. If there are problems at a workplace, it is the employer’s role to diagnose them, take action and draw consequences.

All these insinuations that the injured party is mentally ill, that she is unreliable and that she has a low threshold for triggering emotions—because such questions were raised by the defence—all serve to undermine the injured party’s credibility.

We have witness testimony clearly stating that the accused came to the injured party, showed her his signature and said, “You will sign documents this way.” Why did he behave like that? He knew that such things are not done. No one should be encouraged to forge signatures. Perhaps he did not know that the injured party had the right to sign documents with her own first and last name. But we are not assessing the injured party’s behaviour, but the accused’s, and we must focus on his awareness and knowledge. If we take the accused’s behaviour into account, it is obvious that he wanted the injured party to forge his signature. All these circumstances point to that.

I will say it directly, because the evidence supports me. I am not interested in the accused’s state of health; I am interested in the injured party’s state of health. I do not know whether the accused cried sincerely or insincerely today, because until now, for many months, the injured party was the victim; she had to cope with a difficult reality, while the accused was flourishing in the office.

It is good that the injured party was strong enough to decide to raise the matter and go through with it; I know it was not easy for her.

We are dealing here with a public figure in a prominent position. And it is the accused himself who emphasises these elements; I would not raise them. Such elements include his public and ecclesiastical, Catholic activity. Taking these elements into account, I would never have said that such a person could commit such acts.

The degree of guilt in this case is high. You are a person from whom considerably more should be expected than from others. Unfortunately, the accused did not bear the responsibilities imposed on him as cemetery manager and, above all, as an employer. The evidence is devastating, but the accused still stands by his position.

The degree of social harm is considerable. Such behaviour is reprehensible, destroys other people’s lives and can lead to drastic consequences, such as the injured party becoming ill and developing somatic symptoms against a background of depression. In such situations, people take their own lives.

It is not as the defence suggested, that the injured party has a particular psychological and emotional make-up and takes everything personally. And even if that were so, it would be irrelevant. The most important thing is that, in his position, the accused should have behaved appropriately to the function he held, so as not to harm anyone. If something was wrong, disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated and she should have been dismissed or reprimanded. The accused did not do that, and today he says he did not do it because he did not do it.

In my opinion, the accused should never manage employees because he is not suited to it. To lead people, one must have considerable distance from oneself and from one’s disposition, and know how to behave in difficult situations. A supervisor should first put himself in the employee’s position and consider what he would do in that person’s place.

This case shows, and should also show society, which behaviours are subject to assessment by a criminal court and which arise in relations between an employer and an employee.

The court will ultimately assess whether these behaviours fulfilled the elements of criminal offences, but there is no doubt that the behaviours of the accused towards the injured party were ugly and should never have occurred.