Supreme Court: A majority shareholder cannot be an employee

The case in question was based not on labour law but on social insurance law. It considered an insured person employed under an employment contract as the chair of a one-member board in a limited company, while at the same time holding more than 95% of the shares. Because of that, the insured person would be considered self-employed and not an employee for the purposes of social insurance. This, in turn, affects the amount of sickness and maternity benefits. A few things do not add up here, such as the fact that the insured person was not the sole shareholder in the limited company and, therefore, was not even insured as self-employed. Arguably, the Social Insurance Institution acted quite generously by not questioning this insurance title. The issue of shareholder employment in a limited liability company has been the subject of disputes for years – Łukasz Chruściel comments for Rzeczpospolita.

Article: here.