I want to write down what is happening, with dates, without accusing anyone wrongly

Workplace bullying: what does a dated record of facts contain?

Reconstructed case: the exchanges, dates and participants are fictional data, written to show the structure of the document. No real person, team or company is described here.

Characterising conduct as workplace bullying is a legal determination — in France it falls under article L1152-1 of the labour code — and it belongs to the courts. This document does not make that determination and is not meant to: it establishes dated, sourced and recalculable facts that you can hand to a labour inspectorate, an occupational physician, a staff representative or a lawyer. A file built on a single reading turns against whoever carries it: that is why the elements contradicting this reading appear at the top, not in a footnote.

The record of facts

Period covered: 06/01/2026 to 30/05/2026 · 741 messages · 4 participants

Messages received outside the working hours retained — 63 messages
Count of messages received whose timestamp falls outside the 09:00–18:00 range declared by the report holder, from 6 January to 29 May. Automated messages and system messages excluded.
Messages received between 22:00 and 6:00 — 21 messages
Count of messages received whose timestamp falls between 22:00 and 06:00, over the period covered.
Requests from the report holder left unanswered — 7 requests
Explicit requests from the report holder followed by no message from their recipient for more than 72 hours. Three of them received no reply over the period covered.
Reply time — 96 hours (median, requests from the report holder)
Median time between an explicit request and the first message from its recipient, calculated separately by sender over eleven requests of the same nature: 6 hours for S.K., 96 hours for A.M.
Wording repeated identically — 5 occurrences
Strings of more than six words repeated word for word at least three times by the same sender, courtesy formulas excluded.
Exits from a thread or channel, dated — 1 exit
Threads with several recipients in which the report holder is present and then is no longer, the thread continuing afterwards over at least ten messages. One exit recorded: “monitoring committee” thread, on 3 April, 28 messages afterwards. Two other participants leave the same thread on the same date.
Share of messages addressed to a group — 75 %
Share of remarks bearing on the report holder’s work addressed in a channel with at least three recipients, related to all such remarks: 9 out of 12 after 3 April, 1 out of 6 before.
Messages carrying an urgency marker — 29 messages
Messages received containing at least one explicit urgency marker (“urgent”, “for tonight”, “before tomorrow morning”, “immediately”), over the period covered.

This document is an automatically generated record of facts, based on the exchanges you provided. It is neither an expert assessment, nor legal advice, nor a legal characterisation. Workplace harassment, discrimination and similar characterisations are legal determinations that belong to the competent authorities. For any action, contact your labour inspectorate, occupational physician, staff representative or a lawyer. The measures shown here cover only the exchanges submitted: they do not reflect the full context of your situation.

The report

What is observed

63 messages were received outside the 09:00–18:00 range declared by A.M., from 6 January to 29 May, 21 of them between 22:00 and 6:00.
Of these 63 messages, 44 are concentrated in the nine weeks running from 16 March to 15 May.
Seven written requests from A.M. concerning their annual objectives went unanswered for more than 72 hours; three received no reply at all over the period covered.
The wording “you clearly haven’t understood what is expected of you” recurs word for word 5 times between 24 March and 12 May.
A.M. is on the “monitoring committee” thread from 6 January to 2 April; from 3 April onwards, the next 28 messages in that thread no longer include them.
9 of the 12 remarks recorded on A.M.’s work were addressed in a channel with at least three recipients; the other 3 as a direct message.
Out of eleven requests of the same nature addressed to P.V., the eight sent by S.K. receive a reply in less than 24 hours; the three sent by A.M. in more than 96 hours.

What this indicates

The chronology indicates a concentration of out-of-hours messages over the nine weeks following 16 March, the date on which a reorganization is mentioned in the channel.
Several sequences show a difference in reply time between two participants on comparable requests, without the exchanges provided allowing the cause to be established.
The chronology indicates a shift of remarks from the direct message to the group channel from 3 April onwards; the exchanges provided do not give the reason for it.

Leads to check

One lead to check would be a change of reporting line on 16 March: the concentration of out-of-hours messages is contemporaneous with it, and the reorganization is mentioned only once, without detail.
One lead to check would be a difference in scope between A.M. and S.K. that would account for the gap in reply time: nothing in the exchanges provided allows it to be ruled out or established.

Dates, extracts, a reproducible method: build the record of facts before speaking to anyone at all → Build my record