Employers must ensure equally favorable employment conditions for all staff, including part-time employees. This extends to their rights concerning rest, breaks, and equal pay. While part-time employment provides flexibility, it also has its own challenges, especially when planning working hours and accounting for overtime. Adding to this complexity is the dynamic nature of judicial decisions, including recent Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rulings that offer new interpretations of Article 151(5) of the Labour Code. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch and Anna Szulc comment for Rzeczpospolita.
Updating the Labour Code to reflect current social realities is essential for the proper advancement of labour law. Inconsistent court rulings, including those from the Supreme Court, often discourage employers from adopting forward-thinking practices, even when they align with the legislative intent. Therefore, de-formalising certain regulations and standardising Labour Code terminology is a highly desirable and necessary reform. To comply with regulations that explicitly require a written form, innovative tools like biometric signatures, personal signatures, and one-time QES signatures have been developed. Employers no longer need to store bulky employee files in physical archives or arrange courier services for signatures on documents whose content has already been agreed upon via email. – Bartosz Tomanek and Mateusz Krajewski comment for the monthly magazine Monitor Prawa Pracy.
In the digital work environment, shaped by hybrid and remote work models many employee interactions happen primarily, or even only online. This mode of communication, often lacking face-to-face context, facial expressions, or tone of voice, creates space for misunderstandings and, in some cases, misconduct. The sense of distance can foster a false sense of anonymity. Some employees believe that “behind the screen” they can get away with more – a message sent through a company communicator can be deleted, a sharp email, written in a moment of frustration, will be overlooked as another message in a long thread. Nothing could be further from the truth. – Paweł Sych and Klaudia Mjakutewicz-Jędrzejczak for magazine HR na Szpilkach.
The legal nature of retention bonuses has been shaped mainly by court rulings and employment practice. Since they are not regulated by Polish labour law, employees are entitled to such bonuses only if they are clearly mentioned in an employment contract, collective agreement, or remuneration policy. Implementing a retention bonus should begin with defining clear and objective criteria that determine employee’s eligibility. Vague wording may require the employer to pay the bonus even if the employee has not met the condition of continuous employment. – Michał Włodarczyk, Mateusz Krajewski and Anna Szulc comment for Rzeczpospolita.
Working time records for managers typically do not specify the exact hours for performing duties. Standard timekeeping mechanisms may not be sufficient in their case. Establishing clear rules for reporting overtime, along with appropriate justification, can provide a more complete picture of the organisation’s operations, and the individual’s workload. Persistent overtime among management may indicate broader issues, such as staffing shortages, or ineffective task execution. Failing to identify these patterns early may lead to disputes over unpaid overtime and related compensation. Absence of this data can also impact budget planning and bonuses. – Patryk Kozieł comments for Rzeczpospolita.
While the Ministry assures they are working on Directive implementation and developing appropriate solutions, employers are raising concerns – the time is passing, yet they still do not have instructions for taking next steps. Early preparation can reduce legal risk and offer tangible benefits. If a company identifies today, that the gender pay gap exceeds 5%, there is still time to address these issues proactively, on their own terms, before formal reporting obligations are in effect. This presents an opportunity not only to mitigate compliance risks, but also to protect the company’s reputation and strengthen its position in a competitive labour market. – Sławomir Paruch and Michał Włodarczyk comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
An employer may recall an employee from their leave only in exceptional, unforeseen circumstances, that require their presence. In such cases the employer is responsible for covering direct costs associated with interrupting the leave. That said, there are disagreements on what can be qualified as a “direct cost”, especially when it involves expenses for accompanying family. It is important to note that there is no compensation for a disrupted or “wasted” vacation. Refusing to return early, if requested, can be seen as serious breach of employment duties. If there is a dispute, the labour court can decide it the recall was justified, and could not be anticipated earlier. – Sławomir Paruch comments for Rzeczpospolita.
Whether or not an unfortunate incident at a company event would be classified as a workplace accident, largely depends on the event’s purpose and the participants’ actions. Often, team-building events blend formal workshops with informal recreational activities. However, employees are typically considered to be on company time throughout both parts of such an event. This means they remain protected by workplace insurance. The scope of this insurance extends beyond the direct execution of job duties, including activities that would not be considered work-related in normal circumstances. – Michalina Lewandowska-Alama comments for prawo.pl.
Addressing the issue is crucial, but the proposed solution is concerning because it takes us further down the path that should be avoided – blurring the lines between employment contracts, service contracts, and self-employment. Our goal should be to ensure that employers and workers choose the right type of contrancts based on the actual nature of their work, in line with legal requirements. Unfortunately, the proposed changes would make these three very different types of arrangements look even more alike in everyday business practice, when, in fact, we should be working to clearly distinguish between them. While this approach may help fix some unfairness in the short term, over time it could make it harder to improve the overall system for workers in a meaningful and sustainable way. – Marcin Sanetra discusses with Paweł Blajer for BIZNES24.
Employers now have an unambiguous legal foundation to prohibit vaping in the workplace. This results from a recent amendment to the Tobacco Act, which broadens the definition of e-cigarette smoking to encompass devices containing nicotine-free liquids. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch comments for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
