Equal and fair employment treatment for those on replacement employment contracts?

Employment contracts for replacement purposes are not legally clearly defined under the current Polish Labour Code. It is a contractual arrangement that allows employers to solve personnel issues associated with temporarily unavailable workers for given periods of time. The core elements associated with an employment contract for a replacement, as compared to those of a fixed term employment contract, warrant the assertion that this is an agreement incompatible with the principleof equality in employment and social justice. There are controversies also associated as to how such replacement agreements can be terminated. The legislator intends to change the governing rules of terminating fixed term contracts as well as replacement agreements. Those employees who are in fact replacing workers who are absent for justifiable reasons, remain the weakest employee group as far as employment law protection is concerned.Umowa na zastępstwo, której charakter prawny nie jest definitywnie przesądzony w aktualnym brzmieniu Kodeksu pracy, to udogodnienie dla pracodawców umożliwiające im rozwiązywanie problemów natury kadrowej w sytuacji okresowej niezdolności do pracy nieobecnego pracownika. Modyfikacje, które dotyczą umowy na zastępstwo w porównaniu z innymi umowami o pracę na czas określony uzasadniają twierdzenie, iż jest to umowa niezgodna z zasadą równości w zatrudnieniu i sprawiedliwości społecznej. Istnieją kontrowersje, co do możliwości wypowiadania tego rodzaju umów. Ustawodawca zamierza zmienić zasady wypowiadania umów na czas określony, w tym umowy na zastępstwo. Pracownicy zatrudniani w celu zastępstwa innego pracownika w czasie jego usprawiedliwionej nieobecności pozostają bez wątpienia grupą pod najsłabszą ochroną prawa pracy.  

Directions of codification of labor law according to Professor Tadeusz Zieliński

Prof. Ph.D. Tadeusz Zieliński took an active part in the discussion on the future of labor law, he loudly demanded the necessity of making changes and set new directions for these changes. As he emphasized, in order to codify law, it is necessary to think in the long-term perspective, and not only thinking limited by legislative periods. Labor law is a branch of law so deeply involved in politics that it is diffi cult to achieve in it a long-lasting consensus between confl icting endeavors. According to Prof. Ph.D. Tadeusz Zieliński - the new Labor Code should be an act of primary importance and should not be a modifi cation of the present, but it should also take advantage of and accept as its own institutions that have already proved their worth. Th e new Labor Code must be based partly on new general assumptions, contain a catalog of basic (general) principles of labor law, which will give it cohesion, with the principle of supremacy at the forefront, which in turn will guarantee its longevity. Th e Labor Code must be permanent, so its amendments should only be carried out in absolutely exceptional situations. A well-written code should be a complete act, an open legal system, a stable and edited pure Polish. According to Prof. Zieliński, the subject of inter-est of the new Labor Code should be broadly understood employment. Prof. Tadeusz Zieliński in his refl ections on the codifi cation of labor law indicated a clear lack of harmony between labor law provisions with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Th ere is no doubt that the reform of labor law is in the light of the requirements of proper legislation a very diffi cult goal, because it should be adapted to the needs of the new system of work. Considerations on the directions of labor law codifi cation according to Prof. Zieliński still remain very current. Professor Zieliński indicated that the future will show whether we are going to try to recruit labor law, but we will not fall into the trap of cutting our coat according to our cloth. At this moment, it is regrettable to say that unfortunately we have fallen into a trap, and the fi asco of the work of the last commission on new labor codes is not optimistic

Legal situation of an employee returning to work after use of parental leave : postulates de lege ferenda

Labour law provisions meet the expectations of employees who are also parents and enable them to connect a professional work with parental responsibilities. Theere is always a guarantee of employment granted by employer to the employee aft er returning from parental leave and that is because of an articles 183² and 1864 of the Polish Labour Code which protect these employees. Thee protection is also granted to the employee who is entitled to a parental leave but he or she decides to lower his or her workload what is considered as alternative form of parental leave. If employee returns to work for his or her employment in a previously given post, equivalent post or other in accordance with his or her qualifications it should not adversely aff ect his or her financial situation. Theese labour law provision guarantees a salary which he or she would receive if he or she would not use a parental leave. Theese provisions do not forbid an employer to provide notice of changing termination or definitive termination, but as long as there is a possibility of mandate other work to the returning employee, definitive termination is not justified. Thee subject of analysis are valid labour law provisions in order to verify if assumption of the legislator about stabilization of employment for employees who are also parents returning to work aft er parental leave is fully implemented in practice. In conclusion, in relation with expanding the range of application article 186 (8) § 2 of the Polish Labour Code by jurisprudence, the position of an employee returning to work aft er using parental leave has been weakened

Równe i sprawiedliwe zatrudnienie na podstawie umowy o pracę na zastępstwo?

Employment contracts for replacement purposes are not legally clearly defined under the current Polish Labour Code. It is a contractual arrangement that allows employers to solve personnel issues associated with temporarily unavailable workers for given periods of time. The core elements associated with an employment contract for a replacement, as compared to those of a fixed term employment contract, warrant the assertion that this is an agreement incompatible with the principleof equality in employment and social justice. There are controversies also associated as to how such replacement agreements can be terminated. The legislator intends to change the governing rules of terminating fixed term contracts as well as replacement agreements. Those employees who are in fact replacing workers who are absent for justifiable reasons, remain the weakest employee group as far as employment law protection is concerned.Umowa na zastępstwo, której charakter prawny nie jest definitywnie przesądzony w aktualnym brzmieniu Kodeksu pracy, to udogodnienie dla pracodawców umożliwiające im rozwiązywanie problemów natury kadrowej w sytuacji okresowej niezdolności do pracy nieobecnego pracownika. Modyfikacje, które dotyczą umowy na zastępstwo w porównaniu z innymi umowami o pracę na czas określony uzasadniają twierdzenie, iż jest to umowa niezgodna z zasadą równości w zatrudnieniu i sprawiedliwości społecznej. Istnieją kontrowersje, co do możliwości wypowiadania tego rodzaju umów. Ustawodawca zamierza zmienić zasady wypowiadania umów na czas określony, w tym umowy na zastępstwo. Pracownicy zatrudniani w celu zastępstwa innego pracownika w czasie jego usprawiedliwionej nieobecności pozostają bez wątpienia grupą pod najsłabszą ochroną prawa pracy.  

Discrimination of employees performing parental duties

La discrimination d’un travailleur qui outre les devoirs professionnels exerce aussi les devoirs parentaux est hautement répréhensible. Le travail professionnel ainsi que la vie familiale constituent les sphères de vie les plus importantes qui sont étroitement liées l’une à l’autre et mutuellement dépendantes, et en même temps fortement concurrentielles l’une par rapport à l’autre. La protection du travailleur-parent devrait consister non seulement à lui octroyer des droits appropriés, mais avant tout à créer des mesures de protection efficaces (juridiques, non juridiques) contre la discrimination. Si l’exercice de nombreux droits à titre de parentalité devient la cause d’un traitement inégal, nous avons affaire à la discrimination interdite en raison de la parentalité. Le choix de vie qu’est la parentalité et, par conséquent, l’accomplissent des devoirs qui y sont liés peut avoir une influence considérable sur le traitement et la position du travailleur dans le milieu professionnel, d’où il devrait être ‒ de lege ferenda ‒ inclus dans le contenu du code de travail comme le critère de la différenciation interdite. Toujours est-il que ce sont non seulement les travailleurs eux-mêmes qui devraient être protégés contre la discrimination eu égard à la parentalité, mais aussi les candidats qui cherchent du travail et les anciens travailleurs. Le législateur a créé pour le travailleur-parent quelques possibilités dont il peut faire usage dans le cas où la discrimination se produirait, telles que par exemple la résolution du contrat de travail sans préavis (mais pas dans tous les cas) ou les prétentions à indemnité, mais ‒ avec la protection réelle contre la discrimination ‒ elles semblent toutefois insuffisantes. La protection des travailleurs-parents contre la discrimination ne sera pas complète si elle s’appuie uniquement sur les solutions de code. Sans solutions concrètes dans le domaine de l’introduction obligatoire des procédures antidiscriminatoires par l’employeur, il ne sera pas possible d’assurer une protection complète et efficace. Néanmoins, afin de pouvoir appliquer les mesures de protection incluses dans le code, il faut avant tout les régulariser de telle sorte que leur caractère juridique et l’étendue ne soient pas douteux. D’où aussi la nécessité absolue de changer les règlements en vigueur.Discrimination of employees who, apart from their professional duties, perform also parental duties, remains highly exceptionable. Professional life, as well as family life, constitute the most important spheres of a person’s life, inextricably connected and interdependent, but also highly competitive. The protection of such a parent-employee should entail not only granting them appropriate privileges, but also creating effective countermeasures (legal, extralegal) against discrimination. If being granted numerous privileges becomes the source of unequal treatment, then what occurs is unsanctioned discrimination on account of being a parent. The life choice of becoming a parent, and consequently, the fulfillment of related duties can have substantial impact on the employee’s treatment and position in their professional environment, and thus should be, de lege ferenda, included in the rules as a forbidden differentiation criterion. However, such protection against discrimination should encompass not only the current, but also prospective and former employees. The legislator has created several possibilities for the parent-employee to utilize in case of discrimination, such as immediate resignation with no notice (though not applicable in all cases) or compensatory measures, though these are by no means sufficient when it comes to real, actual protection from discrimination. Such protection from discrimination against parent-employees will not be comprehensive if it remains restricted only to the Employment Code solutions. Without specific solutions with regard to obligatory introduction of appropriate antidiscrimination policies by the employers, it will be impossible to guarantee full and effective protection measures. However, in order to be able to implement the protective solutions delineated by the Code, they should first be regulated so that there remains no question of their legal character as well as scope. Therefore, a change in the already functioning regulations is necessary.Dyskryminacja pracownika, który poza obowiązkami zawodowymi wypełnia również obowiązki rodzicielskie, pozostaje wysoce naganna. Praca zawodowa, jak i życie rodzinne, stanowią najważniejsze sfery życia, które pozostają ze sobą ściśle powiązane i wzajemnie od siebie zależne, a jednocześnie względem siebie silnie konkurencyjne. Ochrona pracownika-rodzica powinna dotyczyć nie tylko przyznania mu stosownych uprawień, ale przede wszystkim stwarzać skuteczne środki ochrony (prawne, poza-prawne) przed dyskryminacją. Jeżeli korzystanie z licznych uprawnień z tytułu rodzicielstwa staje się przyczyną nierównego traktowania, to dochodzi do niedozwolonej dyskryminacji ze względu na rodzicielstwo. Wybór życiowy, jakim pozostaje rodzicielstwo a w konsekwencji wypełnianie obowiązków z nim związanych może mieć znaczący wpływ na traktowanie i pozycję pracownika w środowisku pracy stąd też winno być ono – de lege ferenda – zawarte w treści kodeksowej zasady jako kryterium niedozwolonego różnicowania. Przy czym ochroną przed dyskryminacją z uwagi na rodzicielstwo objęci winni być nie tylko sami pracownicy, ale również kandydaci do pracy oraz byli pracownicy. Ustawodawca stworzył pracownikowi--rodzicowi kilka możliwość, z których ten może skorzystać w przypadku wystąpienia dyskryminacji, takich jak np. rozwiązanie umowy o prace bez wypowiedzenia (choć nie w każdym przypadku) czy roszczenia odszkodowawcze, ale przy faktycznej ochronie przed dyskryminacją wydają się być one jednak niewystarczające. Ochrona przed dyskryminacją pracowników–rodziców nie będzie kompletna, jeśli pozosta-nie oparta jedynie na rozwiązaniach kodeksowych. Bez konkretnych rozwiązań w zakresie obligatoryjnego wdrażania przez pracodawcę stosownych procedur anty-dyskryminacyjnych nie będzie możliwe zapewnienie pełnej i skutecznej ochrony. Jednakże, aby móc sięgnąć do kodeksowych środków ochrony, należy przede wszystkim uregulować je tak, aby nie był wątpliwy ich charakter prawny oraz zakres. I stąd też zmiana obowiązujących regulacji pozostaje absolutnie konieczna

Kontrowersje dotyczące obiektywnej przyczyny leżącej po stronie pracodawcy jako podstawy uzasadniającej zawarcie nielimitowanej terminowej umowy o pracę

The legislator has provided four exceptions from the rule of limited period of employment based on a fixed-term contract and a limit on the total number of contracts, modeled on existing solutions in European law and dictated by market realities. These relate to target contracts, i.e. contracts for replacement work, part-time, seasonal employment, term of office in employment, and the most controversial case of objective reasons for the employer. In relation to these contracts, neither a time limit nor a quantitative limit is applied, and in the literature they are referred to as unlimited, objectively justified or specific contracts. With the proviso that the conclusion of a contract for a definite period must serve to meet the employer’s demand for work, which is both real and periodic. In addition, when concluding a fixed-term contract justified by objective reasons, the employer remains obliged to notify the relevant district labor inspector – within 5 days – in electronic or written form about the conclusion of such a contract and indication of the reason for its conclusion. Violation of this obligation is an offense against the employee’s rights. The application of the general clause by the legislator provides flexibility, but may also result in the of abuse by the employer. Therefore, the existence of objective reasons justifying the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract will be subject to the assessment of the labor court in cases regarding the establishment of a legal relationship concluded on the basis of an employment contract for an indefinite period

Social expectations as an empirical exponent of the limits the protective function of labor law

Labor law is the law of everyday life, which is why social expectations, socio-political and economic and economic changes significantly contribute to shaping its regulations. Labor law as a branch of law directly referring to human work is exposed to the processes of constant change that should be met, and therefore should contain universal regulations. The current model of labor law is not adapted to modern socio-economic relations, hence the decreasing importance, the need for its thorough, systemic change or even inclusion in civil law. The overriding function of law is the introduction and maintenance of social order, and in the area of labor law its two basic functions are most often distinguished, i.e. protective and organizational, which complement each other. The protective function of labor law does not remain an independent value and does not work in isolation from individual labor law regulations but provides a specific background for them. Her presence manifests itself in the content of individual labor law regulations, such as: establishing, changing and terminating an employment relationship, protecting employment permanence, parental and maternity rights, or regulations regarding material employee responsibility. Labor law should be seen as a regulation concerning the community, and in place of the protective (individualistic) function, the distribution and organizing function of labor law should be restored (with a significant correction of their content) due to the fact that labor law is a tool for equalizing and promoting opportunities in social life. The time of globalization and free market economy should strengthen the position of labor law and at the same time face its new challenges

Universalism of labour law a measure against social exclusion not only in the COVID-19 era

The aim of the study is to show the essence of labour law through the prism of its characteristic structures and goals. Work is one of the most important values in human life, both in the context of securing living and personal conditions. While working, one acquires additional competencies and skills, which transfer into personal development. On the other hand, unemployment has negative living and social effects. For these reasons, it is necessary to show the tools of labour law that prevent broadly understood social exclusion. Their importance becomes more evident in times of crisis, when employees are affected by its effects. Therefore, the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is an important background for the ongoing considerations

Controversies regarding an objective reason on the part of the employer as the basis justifying the conclusion of an unlimited fixed-term contract of employment

The legislator has provided four exceptions from the rule of limited period of employment based on a fixed-term contract and a limit on the total number of contracts, modeled on existing solutions in European law and dictated by market realities. These relate to target contracts, i.e. contracts for replacement work, part-time, seasonal employment, term of office in employment, and the most controversial case of objective reasons for the employer. In relation to these contracts, neither a time limit nor a quantitative limit is applied, and in the literature they are referred to as unlimited, objectively justified or specific contracts. With the proviso that the conclusion of a contract for a definite period must serve to meet the employer's demand for work, which is both real and periodic. In addition, when concluding a fixed-term contract justified by objective reasons, the employer remains obliged to notify the relevant district labor inspector - within 5 days - in electronic or written form about the conclusion of such a contract and indication of the reason for its conclusion. Violation of this obligation is an off ense against the employee's rights. The application of the general clause by the legislator provides flexibility, but may also result in the of abuse by the employer. Therefore, the existence of objective reasons justifying the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract will be subject to the assessment of the labor court in cases regarding the establishment of a legal relationship concluded on the basis of an employment contract for an indefinite period