Month: October 2024

As early as 1 January 2025, the minimum wage in Poland will increase to PLN 4666 gross. This is an increase of PLN 366 compared to the minimum wage in 2024. Thus, the minimum hourly rate will also increase, which from 1 January 2025 will amount to PLN 30.50 gross, i.e. it will increase by PLN 2.40. Importantly, in 2025, no additional changes to the minimum wage are expected during the year, which means that this amount will apply throughout the year.

How much will employees “take-home” pay be?

In 2025, assuming a full-time job, the gross minimum salary will be PLN 4666, but standard contributions must be deducted from this amount. If there are no changes, PLN 455.40 will have to be paid for pension contributions, PLN 69.99 for disability insurance and PLN 114.32 for sickness insurance. There is also a health contribution of PLN 362.37 and an advance payment for PIT, which will amount to PLN 153 without relief.

After deducting these compulsory costs, the employee’s account will receive PLN 3510.92. This is the minimum amount that every full-time employee will receive, regardless of industry or position.

Costs for the employer

Assuming a gross amount of PLN 4666, the cost to the employer will be PLN 5621.59. This is almost £450 more than in 2024!

Some industries may face the challenge of adjusting to higher labour costs. Businesses will need to find ways to optimise expenses, which may translate into a reduction in employment or the need to introduce automatisation.

Summary

An increase in the minimum wage always generates heated discussions about its impact on the labour market and the economy. On the one hand, it supports the lowest paid workers, on the other hand, it creates challenges for entrepreneurs, especially those in low-profitability industries. As always, the real impact of this change will depend on many factors.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the minimum wage or other aspects of employment law, we encourage you to contact our law firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of your case.

The proposal for a four-day workweek is gaining attention in many countries around the world. The idea has both many supporters and staunch opponents. Nevertheless, more and more companies are beginning to see the potential benefits of a shorter workweek. Among other things, there is talk of increased employee productivity and better work-life balance – in line with the concept of work-life balance. As the topic grows in popularity, the question arises, is the four-day work week model likely to become the new standard in the labor market? This change undoubtedly requires careful thought, analysis, consultation and adaptation to the current specifics of the employment sector. Is the four-day workweek the future that awaits us all sooner or later?

Possible options

According to the latest media reports, the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy has taken steps toward reducing working hours. Two options for reducing working hours are currently under consideration: introducing a four-day work week or limiting the weekly working time to 35 hours.

The first option, working four days a week, allows for an additional day off. However, it is unclear what challenges workers will face. Will they have to work four days of 10 hours a day, or will the standard eight-hour workdays simply be compressed into four days? It is also possible that other variants will be introduced, such as three days of 9-hour work and one day of 8-hour work. It is not yet fully known which variant will be adopted, but each solution involves adjustments on the part of both employees and employers. Such a model can significantly improve work-life balance, however, it will require employees to be more efficient in less time.

The second option involves reducing the workweek to 35 hours and spreading those hours over five days, with the result that an employee is expected to work 7 hours a day, rather than the current 8. This approach appears to be less radical than the introduction of a four-day workweek, also offers some benefits and may be more easily accepted by employers.

Both options are primarily aimed at increasing productivity and improving the quality of life of employees, but their introduction will not be an easy task. The choice between these models will depend on a number of factors, including careful analysis of the labor market, the specifics of the industries, and, perhaps most importantly, the expectations of employers and employees. Public consultations will be necessary to assess which model better meets the needs of the Polish labor market. On the one hand, it will be the employers who will have to take into account their organizational capabilities, as well as the potential costs associated with implementing the new system. On the other hand, employees will have to adapt to the new conditions, which will require them to change their habits and develop a new approach to their professional duties. The final decision should therefore be the result of a comprehensive process, taking into account both economic and social aspects, and the development of compromise and readiness of both parties to adapt.

Summary

We will probably still have to wait for changes in the area of shortening the work week – there is no indication that the Labor Code regulations will be amended in the near future, but the declaration of the Ministry of Family, Labor and Social Policy that the changes will take place during the current term of the ruling party allows us to hope that by 2027 we may witness groundbreaking changes in the labor market. Is the four-day workweek the future that awaits us all? All indications are that the answer may come soon.

Does the reason for termination without notice have to be precise? The latest ruling of the Supreme Court

Any decision to terminate a contract without notice can have serious consequences, both for the employer and the employee. However, the latest ruling of the Supreme Court (II PSK 103/23) is a step towards an interpretation favorable to employers.

Factual justification

The District Court for Warsaw-Praga-North dismissed R. G.’s claim, and the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court subsequently upheld the lower court’s judgment. Despite this, the employee’s attorney decided to file a cassation complaint with the Supreme Court, claiming that there had been a gross violation of labor laws. The whole situation was initiated by the decision of the employer, i.e. T. Ltd., which decided to terminate the employee’s contract without notice, justifying it by a serious breach of official duties. The employee disagreed with the decision and took the case to court, claiming compensation for wrongful termination.

What did the Supreme Court rule?

The Supreme Court ruled that the cassation complaint could not be accepted for review, even though there was a qualified violation of labor laws. However, as indicated in the justification, the prerequisite for accepting a cassation complaint for examination is not an obvious violation of a specific provision of substantive or procedural law, but a situation in which the violation resulted in a manifestly incorrect ruling. In the present case, according to the court, this was not the case.

The court pointed out that there is no doubt that in accordance with Article 30 § 4 of the Labor Code, in the event of termination of an employment contract without notice, the employer is obliged to indicate the reason justifying such a decision. Such a regulation is intended to enable the employee to defend himself against the employer’s substantively unjustified action. Thus, when it comes to the termination of an employment contract without notice, there should be no room for ambiguity: the employee has the right to know exactly why the employer is parting with him.

According to the Supreme Court, however, a lack of precision does not always mean a violation of the law, since an employer’s vague indication of the reason does not violate Article 30 § 4 of the Labor Code if, under the circumstances of the case, taking into account the information otherwise provided to the employee by the employer, it constitutes a sufficient specification of the reason.

Summary

A recent Supreme Court ruling from April 2024 confirms that clarity is key in termination cases. The employer should indicate to the employee in a precise and understandable way the reasons for termination without notice. If you have any questions or concerns in the field of labor law, we encourage you to contact our law firm. You can count on comprehensive service and full commitment at every stage of the case.

In August 2023, regulations on the posting of drivers in road transport came into force, which were supposed to bring the standards of the Polish transport market, in line with EU conditions through the implementation of Directive (EU) 2020/1057 of the European Parliament and the Council of July 15, 2020. While these regulations were supposed to strengthen control over third-country carriers, the reality is different. Carriers from outside the EU, with the exception of Switzerland, are required by the introduced regulations to inform the State Labor Inspectorate about the posting of drivers on Polish territory. A year after their introduction, the question remains: do the regulations really work, or is it just a facade that changes little?

Notification to the Labour Inspectorate (PIP) – a formality or a real control?

Third-country road carriers that post their drivers to Poland must meet a number of requirements for their operations to comply with Polish law. Among other things, the introduced regulations stipulate that the driver must be equipped with the appropriate documents confirming his posting. Each time before transporting a driver by road on Polish territory, the carrier must issue a confirmation of the driver’s posting. This document is drawn up on a form, which is specified in the Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of August 7, 2023. When performing transport on the territory of Poland, a driver posted from a third country must have in the vehicle:

1. a paper confirmation of the posting, according to the applicable form.

2. evidence of the road transport performed, such as waybills, relevant international transport permits or driving forms.

3. tachograph records in accordance with the AETR Agreement (European Agreement concerning the work of crews of vehicles engaged in international road transport).

The driver is obliged to show these documents at the request of the inspectors of the Road Transport Inspectorate during a roadside inspection.

Blind control – missing key tools

Doubts are raised primarily by Article 23 of the aforementioned law, which defines the scope of roadside control of the posting of drivers on Polish territory from a third country by Road Transport Inspectors. In theory, this control includes verification of the data contained in the documents presented by the driver, as mentioned above, but in practice the inspectors can only verify whether the driver has all the required documents, not whether they are correct. Thus, it can be concluded that, on the basis of the current legislation, the control of posted drivers on Polish territory from a third country cannot be performed correctly. It would be enough if the legislator gave the Road Transport Inspectorate inspectors access to the information provided to the State Labor Inspectorate, as is the case with the control of Member States by means of the Electronic System for Information Exchange in the Internal Market (IMI) in the “Transport” module – but for this a change in the legislation is needed.

Law change needed

The current legislation needs to be changed to allow the Road Transport Inspectors to carry out a real inspection. And although the Ministry of Infrastructure is said to be aware of the problem, changes in the regulations will not happen overnight. The introduction of a new IT system that would enable effective control involves costs and the need for a detailed analysis. And as we know, when costs and EU regulations are involved, there is no hope for quick changes.

Summary

The current regulations on the posting of drivers have serious loopholes that cast a shadow over the effectiveness of inspections. The regulations leave much to be desired. Without the ability of Road Transport Inspection Inspectors to verify notifications, it makes it impossible to reliably control third-country carriers. For the time being, the system needs decisive reforms so that it ceases to be a mere formality and begins to really work to protect the transport market.

On June 20, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considered a preliminary ruling request from the District Court of The Hague (rechtbank Den Haag) in a case (C-540/22) on the compatibility of Dutch legislation with the freedom to provide services in the EU. The case concerned the need for an additional residence permit for Ukrainian citizens posted from one EU country to another when their stay in the country of posting exceeds 90 days.

Exceeding 90 days for Ukrainian citizens

A Slovak employer posted Ukrainian employees to work in the Netherlands, where their stay exceeded 90 days in a 180-day period. Dutch regulations require third-country nationals, including Ukrainians, to obtain a residence permit after such a period. This permit specifies the conditions, length of stay and cost of obtaining it. As a result, the court in The Hague asked the CJEU whether such requirements comply with EU rules on freedom to provide services.

The main issues in dispute:

Obligation to obtain a residence permit: the posting company challenged the requirement to obtain an additional permit after exceeding 90 days of residence in the Netherlands.

Permit duration: the Dutch permits were only valid for the duration of the Slovak permits, making them shorter than the duration of the delegation.

Application fees: the cost of obtaining permits was five times higher than that of certificates of legal residence for EU citizens, which was presented by a posting company as an excessive burden.

The request for a preliminary ruling sought to determine whether EU rules, including Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), preclude national legislation that requires third-country national workers posted for more than 90 days in a 180-day period to hold individual residence permits, the validity of which depends on the residence permit of the posting country and cannot exceed two years, and the obtaining of which involves fees.

Limitations on the validity of permits

Dutch regulations stipulate that the duration of the residence permit of posted workers must not exceed the validity of their permits in the home country. The Secretary of State, in extending the duration of the posted workers, issued residence permits of the same length as the Slovak permits. The applicants argued that such restrictions are disproportionate in the context of the freedom to provide services, which is guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU. However, the CJEU held that such regulations can be justified if they are aimed at preventing illegal residence and entry, as well as protecting public order. This means that workers posted for more than 90 days cannot automatically enjoy the right to access the labor market in the country of posting.

Costs of obtaining permits

In terms of the amount of fees, the CJEU said the amounts were comparable to the cost of obtaining a regular work permit for third-country nationals. However, the posting company pointed out that these fees were five times higher than those for EU citizens, which impeded the free provision of services. The Court noted that such fees may be a restriction on the freedom to provide services, but at the same time EU law does not prohibit them as long as they are not disproportionate.

CJEU ruling

The Court ruled that Articles 56 and 57 TFEU do not preclude national legislation that requires workers posted for more than 90 days to obtain a residence permit, provided the conditions are not disproportionate. Permits may be limited to the validity of documents from the posting country, and may require fees comparable to those for work permits for third-country nationals.

Practical conclusions:

The CJEU’s judgment shows that the Dutch regulations regarding the obligation for Ukrainian nationals to obtain an additional residence permit are in line with the EU’s freedom to provide services. Nevertheless, each posting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the applicability of exceptions to this obligation. If you need assistance with issues related to the posting of citizens of Ukraine or other countries, we invite you to review the law firm’s offer and contact us.