Month: February 2023

There are two important points to bear in mind when it comes to trade union claims concerning the company’s social fund. Firstly, unions do indeed have the right to demand that the funds that were not used or allocated correctly according to the law are returned by the employer.

However, if, for example, payments were made equally to employees who were not means-tested beforehand, then the unions can demand that the money be returned to the social fund, but only the portion that was spent in error.  Secondly, negotiating with the unions on how the social fund is going to be used under Article 27(2) of the Labor Unions Act is not a collective matter, but an individual one. Meanwhile, there is a misplaced common practice that a union negotiates benefits on behalf of all employees – regardless of whether they are members of that union, another union, or not union members at all. This approach breaches, in particular, for non-members, the freedom of association and the right not to join a union as well as their right to privacy.  – Łukasz Chruściel comments for Rzeczpospolita.

Article: here.

Employers are asking how to verify sick leaves submitted by employees and what to do if they are found to be unjustified. – Paweł Sych comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here.

The issue of the validity of a non-compete following termination of employment contract is undoubtedly problematic, and in each case requires an in-depth analysis as to whether and under what circumstances, it is possible to terminate a non-compete agreement following termination of the employment relationship by notice or withdrawal. Commented ruling, leaves no doubt that this is only possible if the parties have provided for it in advance within the limits of the principle of freedom to shape the content of the legal relationship. – Mariusz Maksis comments for Rzeczpospolita.

Article: here.

Checking sobriety just after the end of work, especially wile the employee is still on the company’s premises, is perfectly acceptable and justified. The important point is that the employer is primarily responsible for the safety of everyone in the workplace. It is irrelevant whether they are at work, or just before or after work.  – Paweł Sych comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here. 

Some employers cannot afford to wait and may already be announcing changes to be applicable from 21 February, together with amendment to the Labour Code. Those who are worried about PIP or UODO inspections, should hold off their tests. There are some entrepreneurs, though, such as transport companies, manufacturing companies, or mines, who are already conducting these tests without the employees’ consent because they are responsible for the safety of work in positions on which the general safety, life, and health of others depend. – Bartosz Tomanek comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here. 

The milestone CJEU ruling will change the approach to the processing of personal data. Employers should be more careful about what data they process, and if they do not constitute information indirectly indicative of those catalogued in Article 9(1) GDPR. It is easy to fall into the trap – as it may turn out that the employer is unauthorisedly processing sensitive data, and thus may be exposed to higher liability. – Karolina Kanclerz and Kamil Naziek comment for Rzeczpospolita.

Article: here. 

These changes were pending for years, but the modification of the project means that we will have to wait even longer. Important changes are postponed. It is worth to mention, that public offices will have two years from the bill’s entry into force to implement the discussed solutions, i.e. digitalisation of proceedings. According to the project, in this time, interior and family ministries, and Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), will have to adapt their systems to handle cases electronically. – Karolina Schiffter comments for Business Insider.

Article: here. 

The necessity to deduct social security contributions from non-compete compensation for managers results in higher costs for the employer and a lower amount of net compensation for a contractor, compared to an employee with the same gross compensation. The Supreme Court’s recent stance on the matter is controversial in the light of social security contribution legislation – Robert Stępień and Sandra Szybak-Bizacka comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article here.

Some employers cannot afford to wait and may already be announcing changes to be applicable from 21 February, together with amendment to the Labour Code. Those who are worried about PIP or UODO inspections, should hold off their tests. There are some entrepreneurs, though, such as transport companies, manufacturing companies, or mines, who are already conducting these tests without the employees’ consent because they are responsible for the safety of work in positions on which the general safety, life, and health of others depend. – Bartosz Tomanek comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here.

EU rules do not regulate precisely where contributions must be paid for a person who simultaneously or alternately works in more than one country. Each case must be examined individually. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch and Patryk Kozieł comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Article: here.