These seven days are provided for in the Labour Code to give the employer time to prepare for employee’s longer absence. On the other hand, nothing stops the application of more favourable rules, i.e. granting leave without this deadline. – Karolina Schiffter comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
Article here.
Recently, the Court of Appeal has held that ZUS and the court of first instance completely misapplied Article 8(2a) of the Social Insurance System Act in the considered case. Firstly, they overlooked that it was not the employer who was the recipient of the services provided by a third-party contractor but the other way around. The fact that the employer provided services to the contractor means the employer cannot be considered as the user of the work of their own employees who have an additional contract with the contractor and provide services under this contract. – Łukasz Chruściel comments for Rzeczpospolita.
Article: here.
Q&As summary of the guide “ How to part with an employee?”. – Sławomir Paruch, Karolina Kanclerz, Kinga Rozbicka, Ilona Zacharska and Kinga Ciosk comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
Article: here.
It is a mechanism that allows for easier employment of Ukrainian citizens, without the obligation to have the relevant work permit or to enter the declaration on provision of work into the register. However. This does not mean, that all Ukrainian citizens have obtained an unconditional right to work in Poland. – Maciej Zabawa comments for Rzeczpospolita.
Article: here.
If an IT specialist is hired under an employment contract, transfer of intellectual property is resolved by the law. The rights are automatically acquired by the employer. However, when a professional is employed as an independent contractor or a freelancer, and works on a so-called “contract”, intellectual property rights, including copyright, are not transferred automatically. If the contract does not mention it at all, the rights will not be transferred to the company. – Jakub Grabowski comments for IT-Leaders.
Article: here.
In the discussed ruling, the Supreme Court explains, that by introducing Article 83(1)(1a) of the act on social security systems, the legislator did not change the basic principle, according to which the payer of contributions is the actual, not the apparent employer. This means that ZUS may recognise another entity as the payer if it results from the circumstances regarding the legal relationship with the insured, e.g., it recognises the other entity as the actual employer. ZUS cannot consider that an employment relationship exists between the insured and a particular entity and consider a third party to be the payer. – Łukasz Chruściel comments for Rzeczpospolita.
Article: here.
The new Labour Code provisions can be quite challenging for many businesses, both in terms of costs and organization. However, no less important than the expenses, is ensuring confidentiality of documents and information processed by remote workers. It is also challenging to ensure supervision of the place of work, so the employee can be called to the office in a timely manner in urgent and emergency situations . In addition, it is also important to regulate issues such as correspondence delivery to remote workers. – Sławomir Paruch comments for Rzeczpospolita.
Article: here.