Month: October 2022

Ukrainians who came to Poland in connection with the war will not be able to submit an application for a temporary residence permit after 9 months from their arrival to Poland in a simplified procedure. On the other hand, foreigners who stay in Poland on the basis of e.g. visas extended due to the Covid epidemic will soon lose an extension of their right to stay in Poland.

The so-called Ukrainian Special Bill includes possibility of applying for a temporary residence permit in a simplified manner by Ukrainian citizens who came to Poland in connection with the war. The submission of applications by the first foreigners was to start at the end of November this year. Due to the planned cancellation of the relevant regulation of the Special Bill, it will not be possible to submit applications in this manner.

However, refugees from Ukraine will still have a right to stay in Poland until 24 August 2023. It will also be still possible to obtain an electronic Polish residence permit called Diia.pl. However, it is not known when refugees from Ukraine will be able to submit a traditional application for a temporary residence. Current regulations block this possibility. It will be necessary to adopt additional regulations before 24 August 2023 to enable submission of applications and further extension of their stay in Poland.

The regulation extending the right of foreigners to stay in Poland due to the coronavirus epidemic will also be cancelled. The change applies to persons who have not submitted applications for a residence permit so far, but continue their stay in Poland e.g. on the basis of a visa which expiry date has already expired.

The deadline for submitting applications to legalize further stay in Poland by foreigners from this group is not yet known. We recommend to take steps now. Taking into account the transitional regulations of the planned bill and its urgent nature, the deadline for submitting applications may fall even in the first half of December this year. Moreover, an increase in the number of submitted applications is expected after the adoption of the new act and the issuing of relevant announcements by Immigration Offices on their websites.

However, the elimination of the automatic extension of the right to stay in Poland concerns mainly foreigners with citizenship other than Ukrainian. Ukrainian citizens have an extended right of residence in Poland on the basis of the Special Bill, which is independent of the regulations related to the coronavirus epidemic.

Citizens of Ukraine who did not come to Poland in connection with the war also benefit from additional protection in this respect. On the basis of the draft, the stay of this group of Ukrainians will be additionally extended until 24 August 2023. This is an improvement for some of them. The current regulations, in some cases, include extension of the right of residence of Ukrainians (who have already stayed in Poland before the war) only until 31 December this year.

Since special trade union protection is one of the rights attached to the status of a company or inter-company trade union organisation, the possibility of benefitting from it should be immanently linked to that status. However, in practice, this issue has raised many doubts. After all, courts often apply (besides, incorrectly) special protection almost automatically. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch and Julita Kolodziejska comment for ius.focus.

Article: here.

The much-hailed amendment to the Labour Code, which will introduce rules on remote working, is fast approaching. New regulations will replace the current outdated teleworking provisions and are intended to overcome a slew of problems and doubts concerning remote working that have built up over the last two and a half years. One such issue in question is the employer’s duty to cover the costs of remote working. – Karolina Kanclerz and Łukasz Marzec comment for Contact Online magazine.

Article: here.

Littler, the world’s largest employment and labour law practice representing management, has released its fifth annual European Employer Survey Report. Completed by nearly 700 human resources executives, in-house lawyers and business leaders based mainly across Western and Southern Europe, the survey provides insight into the key issues facing employers amid a historic period of workplace transformation.

Balancing Remote and In-Person Work

The evolving world of work creates a host of novel issues for European employers – among the most pressing of which may be determining how far they can go in requiring in-person work. This year’s survey finds employers pulled in different directions as their desire to increase in-person work may conflict with the flexibility needed to attract and retain talent.

When asked about current requirements for employee work schedules, 30% said employees are working fully in person and 27% said employees are on hybrid schedules, with more days in person than remote. That’s compared with only 11% who said employees are on hybrid schedules working more days remotely than in person, and just 5% who said their employees are working fully remotely.

The trend toward more in-person work may deepen in the coming months, as 73% of employers who are not already requiring fully in-person work said they are considering reducing remote work options. Those who do may encounter roadblocks from employees who are reluctant to relinquish flexibility.

Concerns With Remote Work Remain

As employers walk a fine line between pushing for in-person work and providing flexibility, they will have to weigh the benefits of offering remote work options – which 79% are looking to increase to help attract and retain talent – with those of in-person work. Employers’ key reasons for requiring more in-person work centre around culture and teamwork – including facilitating collaboration and creative thinking (54%) and improving employee engagement (48%) – rather than on productivity and hard costs. Those perceived benefits of in-person work correlate with the main drawback employers see with managing hybrid or remote work arrangements: maintaining company culture and employee engagement (53%).

Wandering Workers on the Rise

“Wandering workers” – employees who work in a different country from where their employer is located – continue to complicate remote work policies for employers. Among those who have employees working with this arrangement, the vast majority (89%) are concerned with the legal risks, tax implications and other employment issues that come along with it. Moreover, this issue seems to be growing, as 73% of respondents to this year’s survey said they have wandering workers, compared to 61% in 2021

AI Tools Gain Traction in a Tight Labour Market

Nearly half of respondents (47%) are currently using or planning to use technology solutions and/or AI tools to support recruiting and hiring efforts. What’s more, 61% of those who are already using such tools said they increased their use in the past year, underscoring the utility of AI and technology in today’s talent landscape.

Macroeconomic Concerns Emerge

Amid rising economic uncertainty, the survey found signs of caution emerging among European employers, though they do not appear to be taking drastic steps en masse at this time. Roughly a quarter (27%) said that macroeconomic concerns have made them hesitant to hire new employees, while 37% are now either considering or implementing workforce reductions.

 

If you would like to receive a full copy of this report, please get in touch with your usual contact at PCS | Littler or write at: perspektywyhr@pcslegal.pl

Employees’ mental health, wellbeing, work-life balance, the right to be offline, protection of the rights of so-called platform workers and employees’ parental rights are being discussed more often today. The EU is taking action, and so are national legislators. All this has resulted in many changes in the law, which we can expect sooner or later. Employers face a real challenge to prepare well for their implementation. – Karolina Kanclerz comments for magazine Business Woman&Life.

Article: here. 

The Labour Code imposes a number of obligations on an employer planning to dismiss an employee. Incompliance with them may result in an appeal to an employment court and, consequently, in declaring the termination as ineffective. To avoid this it is important to keep in mind not only the special protection to which employees are entitled or union consultation, but also the requirements concerning the form and content of the termination statement. – Slawomir Paruch, Robert Stępień, Agnieszka Nicińska-Chudy, and Kinga Krzysztofik comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here.

Telework was a particularly good solution for foreign employers without a branch or affiliate in Poland. Due to withdrawal of telework it will be necessary to regulate employment relations taking into account the new construction of remote working. It is also worth to keep in mind agreements for employees to take over the role of taxpayer, so that the transition from telework to remote working does not lead to any doubts who will be responsible for those duties. – Mariusz Maksis comments for IT Leaders.

Article: here. 

Sometimes employees post racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise abusive comments on social media. The employer is often unaware of this (it would be impossible to constantly monitor employees’ online activity) and learns about such comments from third parties, often form outraged employees, or directly form a person that is affected by such actions. Fortunately, the employer is not helpless. The discovery of inappropriate behaviour should not and cannot remain without reaction. – Paweł Sych and Bartosz Wszeborowski comment for prawo.pl.

Article: here. 

Even though employee liability for the part of social insurance contributions payable to the Social Insurance Institution by the employee has not been regulated by public law, it does not mean that an employer cannot reclaim the contributions if, for whatever reason, they had to cover them in full. In this case, the employer may seek protection under the unjust enrichment provisions set out in the Civil Code. A fly in the ointment is the Supreme Court’s controversial decision that the limitation period is only three years. – Łukasz Chruściel comments for Rzeczpospolita.

Article: here.