Entrepreneurs – consumers with new rights, but without support from the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK).

As of the beginning of the new year (from 1 January 2021), an amendment to the Consumer Rights Act and the Civil Code will come into force, significantly altering the existing course of transactions — entrepreneurs purchasing goods or services for purposes directly related to their business activities, but not of a professional nature, will be entitled to additional privileges. They will be treated as consumers and, as such, will be covered by the consumer protection provisions, even though they are entrepreneurs. Retail chains, online shops, and other sellers should begin preparing for the implementation of the new regulations. This will require changes to terms and conditions and contract templates, as well as the inclusion of the new provisions in dealings with business-consumers.

Following the change in legislation, from 1 January 2021, a person conducting a business activity will be entitled to consumer protection in the following areas:

  • unfair contractual terms — so-called abusive clauses,
  • statutory warranty for defects,
  • the right to withdraw from a distance or off-premises contract (e.g. online purchases).

To qualify for consumer protection, a sole trader must meet one condition — the agreement concluded with the seller must not be of a professional nature, meaning it must not directly concern the trader’s area of specialisation. This refers to situations where, due to the nature of their regular business, the entrepreneur cannot reasonably be expected to possess knowledge or experience in a given field. The seller of the goods or service should verify whether, for the prospective customer, entering into such an agreement is of a professional nature or not.
Updating terms and conditions

The new consumer regulations will require sellers to include new provisions in their terms and conditions relating to this category of business-consumers.

A third category of party, entitled to consumer rights, should be included in the terms and conditions. Note! This new group of entrepreneurs should not be classified directly as consumers. This is because they are not consumers in the legal sense — they are only granted certain consumer rights. Therefore, sellers should supplement their terms and conditions with distinct provisions dedicated exclusively to this group.

In addition, the content of the terms and conditions should be reviewed in light of the three areas in which this third category will be granted consumer rights: unfair contractual terms, statutory warranty for defects, and the right to withdraw from a distance contract. Sellers should determine what will change in these areas for the newly entitled group. Each provision of the terms and conditions should then be checked to see whether the given right or obligation applies to this new category or not.

Right to lodge a complaint

This new category of party will also benefit from preferential rules regarding complaints. If an entrepreneur operating a business submits a complaint under the statutory warranty claiming repair, replacement, or a price reduction, then — after the amendment comes into force — the seller will be obliged to respond to the complaint within 14 calendar days from the date of submission. Previously, this deadline did not apply to entrepreneurs.

The provisions of the Civil Code on statutory warranties for physical defects also apply to used items. Therefore, if a sole trader purchases a second-hand product in a physical shop or via distance selling and it turns out to be defective, they are entitled to lodge a complaint within 2 years of receiving the item.

If the entrepreneur finds that the used item is defective, they may request a replacement with a defect-free product, removal of the defect, a price reduction, or a refund if the item cannot be repaired or replaced.

In addition to the above entitlements, from 1 January 2021, sole traders will be able to exercise the right to return goods purchased at a distance on the same terms as private individuals. Immediately after the amendment enters into force, online shops may expect an influx of returns from sole traders who gain this privilege. The right of return is subject to the same requirement as the rest of consumer protection — the agreement concluded with the seller must not be of a professional nature.

For example — a sole trader running an estate agency purchases a coffee machine for the office. The machine will be used by the entrepreneur’s staff. In this case, the purchase should be treated as a non-professional agreement. The seller should be prepared for the possibility that the customer may withdraw from the contract in the case of an online purchase. As a rule, the buyer will have 14 days to return the product. It is worth emphasising that the entrepreneur is not obliged to give a reason for returning the item.

Does an employer have to inform about an employee sick with COVID-19?

This matter has been clarified by the Commissioner for Human Rights (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich), whose website states that although none of the regulations dated 9, 23, 30 October and 3 November 2020 (concerning the establishment of certain restrictions, obligations, and prohibitions in connection with the state of epidemic) explicitly impose such a duty on employers, this obligation can be inferred from the Labour Code (Article 207 §2 in conjunction with Article 304 and Article 226 point 1).

The employer is responsible for occupational health and safety conditions at the workplace. The employer is obliged to protect the health and life of employees by ensuring safe and hygienic working conditions, using appropriate scientific and technical advancements. As a result, the employer bears responsibility for employee safety, and if they suspect or observe symptoms of the virus in an employee, they should report the case to the local sanitary-epidemiological station (Sanepid). In particular, the employer is obliged to:

  • organise work in a manner ensuring safe and hygienic working conditions,
  • ensure compliance with occupational health and safety regulations and rules in the workplace, issue instructions to rectify any deficiencies in this area, and monitor the implementation of these instructions,
  • respond to the needs related to occupational health and safety and adapt measures aimed at improving the existing level of health and life protection for employees, taking into account the changing working conditions,
  • develop a coherent policy for preventing workplace accidents and occupational diseases that considers technical issues, work organisation, working conditions, social relations, and the impact of the working environment,
  • include the protection of young workers, pregnant or breastfeeding employees, and employees with disabilities in preventive actions,
  • ensure compliance with orders, decisions, and recommendations issued by workplace safety supervisory authorities.

The Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research Institute (CIOP-PIB) recommends establishing procedures for responding when an employee shows symptoms of COVID-19. These procedures should specify how to:

  • handle an employee suspected of having COVID-19, including providing a protective mask and gloves, and isolating them from other employees,
  • compile a list of individuals who had direct contact with the potentially infected employee,
  • report the suspected COVID-19 case to the relevant county or provincial sanitary-epidemiological station.

 

Any questions regarding the scope of the employer’s obligations may be directed to the Ombudsman’s helpline: 800-676-676

The Ministry plans to introduce new obligations for entrepreneurs – a draft amendment to the Act on Counteracting Money Laundering.

The draft Act on Counteracting Money Laundering, prepared by the Ministry of Finance, introduces a number of additional obligations for obliged institutions. The changes will concern, among others, the application of financial security measures, the fulfilment of new reporting obligations, and the execution of so-called “complex transactions”. Businesses should prepare for the need to implement extensive systemic improvements and redefine their operational models.

The amendment to the Act indicates that financial security measures must be applied, for instance, in the event of a change in the nature or circumstances of a business relationship, or if there is a change in the data of a client or a beneficial owner. It is worth noting that the current wording of the Act does not clarify what kind of changes to client data would require a reassessment of the client’s risk profile. The new provisions may therefore suggest the need to apply the full scope of financial security measures even in the case of minor changes that do not affect the money laundering risk level. This represents a significant shift in the approach to applying financial security measures to counterparties and may significantly slow down the initiation of business relationships and the execution of transactions. Financial security measures include, for example, the identification and verification of the identity of the client and the beneficial owner, as well as the ongoing monitoring of transactions to determine the final risk level of the client.

The Ministry’s draft also emphasises the responsibility of obliged institutions to monitor changes in client and beneficial owner data. It is currently common for obliged institutions to include contractual clauses requiring clients to notify them of any such changes. However, one must remember that the responsibility for the accuracy of client data lies with the obliged institution. It is also required that obliged institutions define the method for periodically verifying this information. From the perspective of entrepreneurs, the most cost-effective solution may prove to be the use of technologies that automatically compare client and beneficial owner data held by the institution with data from commercial registers and the Central Register of Beneficial Owners (CRBR).

Unfortunately, although the register provides open access to beneficial ownership information—facilitating the identification of ownership structures—the amended Act states that the register cannot be treated as the sole reliable source of information. Firms will be obliged to continuously monitor the consistency of CRBR entries with the data they hold, thereby verifying their accuracy. Rather than assisting companies in complying with statutory obligations, the register will impose even more responsibilities on them.

Beneficial owners will also be required to provide documents and information necessary for proper notification to the CRBR. According to the authors of the draft, this is intended to facilitate the acquisition of information from groups controlling Polish companies.

The draft also introduces two new categories of transactions: “complex” and “carried out in an unusual manner”. These will require the application of enhanced financial security measures. However, the draft does not currently include examples of such transactions, which means that the burden of classification will fall on the obliged institutions. They should also attempt to clarify the circumstances of the transaction and intensify the financial security measures related to the ongoing monitoring of the business relationship with the client.

At present, obliged institutions are required to apply enhanced financial security measures in relation to clients from high-risk third countries, as identified in delegated acts adopted by the European Commission, or that are based in such countries, excluding, for example, branches of obliged institutions. According to the draft amendment, the obligation to apply enhanced financial security measures will apply to any transaction or business relationship linked to a high-risk third country. The proposed catalogue of such measures includes, among others, the collection of “additional information” about the client and the beneficial owner, the expected nature of the business relationship, and the reasons and circumstances of the transaction. However, no specific examples of “additional information” are provided. This wording could be interpreted as limiting the risk-based approach to merely selecting appropriate financial security measures. The aim of this provision is to further safeguard the financial system of the European Union against the inflow of funds originating from illegal sources outside its borders.

Starting from the first of January, it will be mandatory to report contracts for specific work (umowa o dzieło) to the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS).

On 1 January 2021, amendments to the Act on the Social Insurance System will come into force, under which contribution payers will be required to notify ZUS (the Polish Social Insurance Institution) of the conclusion of each contract for specific work (umowa o dzieło). As Minister of Labour Marlena Maląg stated, “The Anti-Crisis Shield is a form of support for entrepreneurs and employees. The aid measures include, among others, benefits for civil law contracts such as contracts of mandate and contracts for specific work. Hence the need to register these contracts.”

All contribution payers who enter into a contract for specific work will have to comply with a new reporting obligation. For the purpose of notifying ZUS, a special form—ZUS RUD—has been prepared.

 

What is the basis of this obligation?

The obligation stems from the Act of 31 March 2020 amending the Act on Special Measures related to the Prevention, Counteracting and Combating of COVID-19, Other Infectious Diseases, and the Crisis Situations Caused by Them, as well as Certain Other Acts (Journal of Laws 2020, item 568). These amendments introduced significant changes regarding contracts for specific work. According to Article 22 of the amendment, a contribution payer or an individual commissioning a specific task must inform ZUS of every such contract if it is concluded with a person with whom they do not have an employment relationship, or if the work is not performed for their employer under such a contract. Notification must be submitted no later than 7 days from the date of concluding the contract.

 

How to report a contract for specific work to ZUS?

The new ZUS RUD form must be used. This form has been included in the draft regulation of the Minister of Family and Social Policy on the specification of templates for social insurance and health insurance declarations, and individual monthly reports, as published by the Government Legislation Centre. The ZUS RUD form is intended to enable ZUS to maintain a record of contracts for specific work concluded by contribution payers or private individuals with persons with whom they do not have an employment relationship, or who do not perform work for their employer under such a contract.

 

The full text of the draft regulation is available on the Government Legislation Centre website:
https://legislacja.gov.pl/projekt/12340507/katalog/12740205#12740205

Benefits and exemptions no longer for everyone. Change to the Convention on the Avoidance of Double Taxation concluded with the Kingdom of the Netherlands

On 29 October, Deputy Minister of Finance Jan Sarnowski and the Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Daphne Bergsma, signed a Protocol amending the Convention for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income.

“Today, we have updated and strengthened the double taxation agreement between Poland and the Netherlands by incorporating the latest standards, including provisions aimed at combating tax fraud. The changes will prevent abuse of the Polish–Dutch tax treaty, including the unjustified use of its benefits by ‘shell’ companies. The Protocol will also safeguard Poland’s right to tax capital gains from the sale of shares in real estate companies used to avoid income tax on sales of property located in Poland.”

– said Deputy Minister of Finance Jan Sarnowski.

The Protocol is intended to reflect Poland’s tax policy and the achievements of the OECD BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) project, including measures to tighten the tax system and combat tax abuse. In order to address treaty abuse, a so-called principal purpose test (PPT) will be introduced. The essence of this clause is the denial of the benefits of the tax treaty where obtaining such benefit was one of the principal purposes of a given transaction.

As a result, the application of the PPT may lead, for instance, to the requirement to withhold tax at source on payments made by Polish residents to entities based in the Netherlands at the domestic rate (disregarding the reduced rates or exemptions provided for in the Convention), if under the given circumstances the tax authorities deem the use of the Convention provisions to be abusive.

An additional safeguard is provided by the new preamble to the Convention, which states that the objective of the Convention is to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance.

Under the newly introduced real estate clause, gains derived by a person resident in one state from the alienation of shares, or comparable interests, may be taxed in the other state if, at any time during the 365-day period preceding the alienation, more than 75% of the value of those shares or comparable interests was derived, directly or indirectly, from immovable property situated in the other state.

The effect of this clause will be the taxation, in the country where the property is located, of the sale of shares or similar interests in a company whose assets consisted of more than 75% immovable property during the 365-day period preceding the sale.

The new rules concerning permanent establishments revise the list of activities excluded from the definition of a permanent establishment. It is now specified that all activities listed in the Convention (e.g., the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage, display, or delivery of goods or merchandise) must be of a preparatory or auxiliary character in order not to constitute a permanent establishment. A permanent establishment will be deemed to exist if a person acts in one of the states on behalf of an enterprise and, in doing so, habitually concludes contracts, or habitually plays the principal role leading to the conclusion of contracts that are routinely concluded without material modification by the enterprise, and such contracts are concluded in the name of the enterprise, or for the transfer of ownership or right to use property owned or used by the enterprise, or for the provision of services by the enterprise.

According to the Protocol, the profits attributable to a permanent establishment are those which it might be expected to make, particularly in its dealings with other parts of the enterprise, if it were a separate and independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions, taking into account the functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by the enterprise, the permanent establishment, and other parts of the enterprise.

For Polish tax residents earning income in the Netherlands, it is important to note that the Protocol will not change the method of avoiding double taxation applicable to them. The proportional credit method will continue to apply. Polish tax residents deriving income in the Netherlands will therefore remain entitled to the abolition relief under the rules set out in the Personal Income Tax Act.

The Protocol also includes, among others:

  • the introduction of a transparent entity clause,
  • the implementation of a general anti-abuse rule (PPT),
  • new provisions regarding permanent establishments,
  • the implementation of the transparent entity clause,
  • the expansion of the rules for determining the tax residence of persons other than individuals with dual tax residence.

What are the income amounts exempt from wage deductions in 2021?

Due to the increase in the minimum wage to PLN 2,800 as of 1 January 2021, the amounts exempt from deductions in 2021 are also increasing.

Let us recall that from remuneration for work – after deducting social security and health insurance contributions, personal income tax advances, and payments to the Employee Capital Plans (PPK), if the employee has not opted out – only the amounts listed in Article 87 § 1 of the Labour Code are subject to deduction:

1) amounts enforced under enforceable titles for the satisfaction of alimony obligations;

2) amounts enforced under enforceable titles for covering obligations other than alimony;

3) cash advances granted to the employee;

4) disciplinary fines.

After deductions, the employee must still receive an amount of at least:

• 100% of the minimum wage for the given year after deduction of social security contributions and personal income tax advances in the case of deductions enforced under enforceable titles for covering obligations other than alimony;
• 75% of the minimum wage for the given year in the case of deductions of cash advances granted to the employee;
• 90% of the minimum wage for the given year in the case of deductions of disciplinary fines imposed by the employer.

In the case of voluntary deductions made based on the employee’s written consent, the exempt amount is:

  • the minimum remuneration referred to earlier – for deductions of obligations owed to the employer,
  • 80% of that amount – for deductions of other obligations (Article 91 § 2 of the Labour Code).

The exempt amount is the net amount. Its value depends on whether the employee:

  • benefits from the PIT exemption for young people, under which income tax advances are not withheld from the employee’s remuneration;
  • participates in PPK,

Amounts exempt from deductions are calculated based on the minimum wage applicable in the given calendar year for employees working full time. In 2021, the minimum wage will be PLN 2,800.

Amounts exempt from deductions for part-time employees are reduced proportionally to their working time (Article 871 § 2 of the Labour Code).

The tables below present the deduction exemption amounts for employees over the age of 26, working full time and part time, who have opted out of PPK, assuming 2020 tax and contribution burdens.

Amounts exempt from deductions in 2021 for full-time employees over 26 who opted out of PPK
With standard tax-deductible costs and tax-reducing amount applied With standard tax-deductible costs and without tax-reducing amount With increased tax-deductible costs and tax-reducing amount applied With increased tax-deductible costs and without tax-reducing amount
Minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
PLN 2,061.67 PLN 2,017.67 PLN 2,069.67 PLN 2,026.67
75% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
PLN 1,546.25 PLN 1,513.25 PLN 1,552.25 PLN 1,520.00
90% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
PLN 1,855.50 PLN 1,815.90 PLN 1,862.70 PLN 1,824.00
80% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
PLN 1,649.34 PLN 1,614.14 PLN 1,655.74 PLN 1,621.34
Amounts exempt from deductions in 2021 for selected part-time employees over 26 who opted out of PPK
Working time Standard costs and tax-reducing amount Standard costs without tax-reducing amount Increased costs and tax-reducing amount Increased costs without tax-reducing amount
Minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
1/4 PLN 587.61 PLN 536.67 PLN 596.11 PLN 547.35
1/3 PLN 754.78 PLN 700.89 PLN 763.28 PLN 709.89
1/2 PLN 1,074.33 PLN 1,030.33 PLN 1,082.33 PLN 1,038.33
3/4 PLN 1,568.00 PLN 1,524.00 PLN 1,576.00 PLN 1,532.00
75% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
1/4 PLN 440.71 PLN 402.50 PLN 447.08 PLN 410.51
1/3 PLN 566.09 PLN 525.67 PLN 572.46 PLN 532.42
1/2 PLN 805.75 PLN 772.75 PLN 811.75 PLN 778.75
3/4 PLN 1,176.00 PLN 1,143.00 PLN 1,182.00 PLN 1,149.00
90% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
1/4 PLN 528.85 PLN 483.00 PLN 536.50 PLN 492.62
1/3 PLN 679.30 PLN 630.80 PLN 686.95 PLN 638.90
1/2 PLN 966.90 PLN 927.30 PLN 974.10 PLN 934.50
3/4 PLN 1,411.20 PLN 1,371.60 PLN 1,418.40 PLN 1,378.80
80% of minimum wage after tax and contribution deductions
1/4 PLN 470.09 PLN 429.34 PLN 476.89 PLN 437.88
1/3 PLN 603.82 PLN 560.71 PLN 610.62 PLN 567.91
1/2 PLN 859.46 PLN 824.26 PLN 865.86 PLN 830.66
3/4 PLN 1,254.40 PLN 1,219.20 PLN 1,260.80 PLN 1,225.60

“Employee poaching” – how to combat the phenomenon of employee poaching?

The term “employee poaching” refers to the practice whereby employers recruit employees from competing companies. This phenomenon often aims not only to acquire valuable employees but is also directed against competing firms and leads to disruption of competitors’ operations in the market. By taking over experienced employees, the recruiting employer gains the opportunity to obtain important information about their competitor, its clients, and the know-how developed within the competing company. Given the increasing frequency of employee poaching, especially in advanced technology sectors, the question arises as to what measures an employer can take to minimise the risks of the negative consequences of so-called employee poaching.

It should be noted that one can combat the practice of employee poaching both against the entity recruiting the employees and by taking preventive actions to reduce the risk of employees moving to the competition. In the former case, the employer can rely on the provisions of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition, which enable them to demand that the other entrepreneur cease unfair practices and/or remove the effects of such actions. Regarding the relationship with employees, legal measures can be introduced that either make it more difficult for employees to decide to move to another entity or make the option of choosing another employer less attractive.

Employee poaching as an act of unfair competition

In cases where employees are poached by another company, the employer can invoke protection under the Act on Combating Unfair Competition (hereinafter: ACUC) against the “poaching” entity. It should be emphasised that, as a rule, merely offering better employment terms to our employees by another employer cannot be deemed unfair conduct. However, if the recruitment of employees is aimed at achieving specific benefits or harming another employer and is carried out in a manner contrary to good practice (e.g. applying pressure, persistent persuasion, providing false information, etc.), such conduct may be considered an act of unfair competition.

According to Article 12(1) of the ACUC, one of the acts of unfair competition is inciting a person employed by an entrepreneur under an employment relationship or other legal relationship (e.g. contract of mandate, contract for specific work) to fail to perform or improperly perform their work duties or other contractual obligations in order to gain benefits for oneself or third parties, or to harm the entrepreneur. This act of unfair competition also occurs when an employer incites an employee to terminate the agreement with their current employer.

As emphasised above, it is crucial that the incitement to terminate the agreement is undertaken with a specific purpose, i.e. to gain benefits for that entrepreneur or to harm them. A classic example is when a group of key employees receives repeated offers to join the competition accompanied by false information about the poor financial condition of their current employer or other disparaging remarks, where the competitor’s aim is not only to acquire valuable human resources but to weaken the competitor’s market position. Other situations may also occur, where each case should be assessed as to whether the conduct constitutes healthy competition or is intended to disrupt it. We may face a situation where another employer does not incite but recruits the majority of employees in order to weaken the company’s market position. Such conduct, aimed at impeding the company’s operations, constitutes an act of unfair competition (Article 3 ACUC). Whether such cases disturb fair competition depends on the effect of the employee takeover, the value of those human resources to the employer, including the ratio of employees taken to those retained.

How to fight against an employer “poaching” employees?

If the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the conduct constitutes an act of unfair competition, the employer may – under Article 18(1) ACUC – demand that the violating party:

  • cease the unlawful actions,
  • remove their effects, i.e. issue a statement of appropriate content and form and remedy the damage caused.

By issuing a statement, the unfair entrepreneur can correct false information spread about the competitor on the market. When seeking redress for damage, the employer must remember that the burden of proving the damage, the occurrence of the unlawful act, and the causal link between the act and the damage lies with them. The extent of damage may include losses incurred by the injured party (e.g. recruitment costs of new employees) as well as benefits lost (e.g. loss of potential contracts due to lack of qualified employees).
Protective measures against disloyal employees

Article 12 ACUC is certainly worth attention in fighting unfair entrepreneurs engaging in employee poaching. However, legal proceedings can be lengthy and may not bring the desired results. Therefore, it is sensible to take preventive measures with employees that ensure a higher degree of loyalty.

Such measures include in particular:

  • entering into post-employment non-competition agreements,
  • protecting the company’s confidential information, including signing confidentiality agreements (NDAs) with employees,
  • concluding non-solicitation agreements preventing employees from recruiting company staff after leaving,
  • signing training agreements.

Non-competition agreements

One effective means to discourage employees from working for an unfair employer engaging in employee poaching is to conclude post-employment non-competition agreements. Under such an agreement, the employee undertakes not to engage in competitive activity against the employer or accept employment with a competing company after the termination of employment.

When drafting a post-employment non-competition agreement, several key issues must be remembered. First, such an agreement must be in writing and only entered into with employees who had access to particularly important information. It is the employer who decides which information is crucial and which employees have access. Second, the non-compete clause must be precisely formulated so the former employee can determine the scope of their obligations. Third, the agreement must specify the duration of the non-compete obligation and the amount of compensation payable to the employee by the employer.

The agreement may include a contractual penalty for breach of the non-compete clause and the employer’s right to waive the agreement. If the right to waive is reserved after termination, the employee will not know whether the non-competition clause applies, thus complicating their decision to move to a competitor. To avoid financial consequences from a late waiver, it is best to stipulate a waiver period ending no later than a few days after employment termination.

Protection of employer’s secrets

Under Article 100 § 2(3) of the Labour Code, the employee is obliged during employment to keep confidential information whose disclosure may harm the employer. This obligation ceases after employment ends, allowing the employee to lawfully disclose important information to the new employer who poached them. To avoid this, the employer may classify key information as trade secrets, which in practice means the employee cannot disclose such information after employment ends.

“Trade secret” means technical, technological, organisational, or other business information that is not publicly known, has economic value, and the entrepreneur has taken necessary steps to keep confidential. The employer should identify which information has economic value and whose disclosure would cause measurable harm. Examples include information protected by copyright law, the production process of a particular device[5], business activity data, client and contractor lists, pricing structures, marketing, and sales strategies. Employee knowledge, skills, and experience are considered personal assets of the employee and may be used by them independently; thus, they are not protected as trade secrets under the law. After identifying confidential information, the employer must take steps to maintain confidentiality, e.g. individual passwords, restricted access to rooms and documents, and applying the “need to know” principle by sharing information only to the extent necessary for work duties. If an employee unlawfully discloses protected confidential information, they will be liable under Article 18 ACUC.

NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)

To protect against disclosure by disloyal employees, it is best to conclude NDAs specifying the scope of trade secrets and the duration of confidentiality after employment ends. The NDA may also provide for penalties for breach.

Training agreements

Losing highly skilled employees poached under employee poaching can be particularly damaging to an employer who invested in their professional development by covering education costs. In such cases, it is worth signing a training agreement requiring the employee to remain employed for a certain period after completing training. The employer then has the right to reclaim training costs if the employee leaves prematurely.

Non-solicitation agreements

Employers may also enter into non-solicitation agreements with employees to prevent them from encouraging other employees (or clients) to leave after their departure. Because such agreements limit competition in the labour market, justified reasons must exist, such as protecting trade secrets.

Criminal sanctions

If trade secrets are disclosed following employee poaching, the affected employer may file a criminal complaint. Both the employee who discloses and the employer or person acting on their behalf who unlawfully acquires and uses such information can be held criminally liable under Article 23(1) ACUC.

Summary

In summary, an employer’s mere suspicion of employee poaching is insufficient. Poaching occurs when additional circumstances exist, such as spreading false information, intercepting trade secrets, and seeking to weaken the competitor’s market position. An employer can fight such improper practices by invoking the Act on Combating Unfair Competition. However, they should also take a range of preventive measures to protect themselves from employee poaching, including ensuring confidentiality of trade secrets, signing non-competition, confidentiality, training, and non-solicitation agreements with employees.

Contracts for specific work: companies fail to report agreements to the ZUS register.

At the beginning of 2021, a new obligation for entrepreneurs was introduced — reporting contracts for specific work (umowy o dzieło) to the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS). However, in January, only 30,000 reports of concluded contracts were submitted to ZUS.

For commentary in Rzeczpospolita on the possible reasons behind entrepreneurs’ concerns regarding the new enforcement tool granted to ZUS for their inspections, Anna Błaszak — legal advisor at our law firm — was invited as an expert.

https://www.rp.pl/Kadry/302049987-Umowy-o-dzielo-firmy-nie-zglaszaja-kontraktow-do-rejestru-ZUS.html?fbclid=IwAR3NuLo3TKRpQOzLorjHcjS74_GLuqRJFmdSVeN8vgrLhkzYi-k2En75bXY

The German judiciary scrutinises the social care sector. Employment agencies to pay outstanding wages.

The social care services market in Germany is developing dynamically, mainly due to posted workers from Eastern European countries, including Poland. However, it appears that a revolution in this sector is imminent. This productive, yet poorly regulated branch of the German economy has recently attracted the attention not only of the German government and the European Union but also of the German judiciary. The latest indication of forthcoming changes is the judgment of the Berlin Regional Labour Court dated 17 August 2020, case reference 21 Sa 1900/19, awarding a Bulgarian caregiver approximately €36,000 in unpaid wages from the employment agency that hired her.

Factual background

The claimant, a 70-year-old Bulgarian citizen, was employed from 21 June 2013 by R. – BG OOD, a company based in Bulgaria, as a social assistant for 40 hours a week in return for a basic monthly salary initially amounting to 783 Bulgarian levs. She was posted to work in Germany, where she worked as a caregiver and domestic helper in private households. From 2014, she worked for Mrs Z., a 96-year-old requiring care, in her apartment in a senior living complex in Berlin. Her contract with the Bulgarian employment agency stipulated that she was to work six hours per day and 30 hours per week, with a 60-minute rest period and free weekends. The contract obliged her to provide basic care to the senior (for example, assistance with hygiene and dressing), specifying that this could not be the dominant part of the services provided. The caregiver was exempt from heavy gardening or fieldwork as well as professional nursing procedures.

At the same time, she was required to provide night watch duties, and at contract signing, it was specified that the claimant should be present with the person she cared for day and night. The caregiver lived with the 96-year-old in the senior residence and was at her disposal daily from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. She explained that she had to keep her bedroom door open all night to hear the elderly woman calling for help, for example when she wanted to go to the bathroom. The claimant received only one day off work, irregularly, only after threatening Mrs Z.’s son with legal action if refused. After requesting holiday leave and holiday pay, she received a ready-made termination notice from the agency, which she did not sign. Consequently, the agency terminated her employment, and the caregiver filed a lawsuit claiming unpaid wages at the statutory minimum wage for 24 hours’ work.

Labour court proceedings

Although the labour court upheld the claimant’s claim, the higher court (Berlin Regional Labour Court) reduced the recognised working hours for unpaid wages to 21 hours and determined the amount according to the general statutory minimum wage (rather than the nursing wage applied by the first-instance court).

Relying on the German Civil Code, the court stated that the employer owes the statutory minimum wage for every hour actually worked. This includes not only work during regular hours but also on-call duty, meaning time spent fulfilling external needs as well as inactivity imposed by the employer during which the employee must remain at the workplace or a designated location and cannot freely decide how to use this time, i.e., there is no break or free time. This condition applies to on-call duty, which the court defined as a period of alert attention in a relaxed state. This means the employee must be available at a place designated by the employer, at any distance from the workplace, ready to start work if necessary. The court emphasised that the statutory obligation to pay wages under the Minimum Wage Act does not differentiate according to the degree of actual use of working time.

Continuous on-call duty

The court concluded that since the claimant, being merely present in Mrs Z.’s household, was effectively on call, her presence sufficed to qualify as on-call duty and thus counted as working time. The scope of services and related expectations of Mrs Z. were also known to the defendant, as she was the contractor. The defendant was thus aware of the working conditions faced by the claimant. However, no precautions or organisational measures were taken to structure the claimant’s working time to limit it.

The panel of the higher court further concluded that the claimant could spend time within the apartment, for example taking long baths or making phone calls, to avoid the need to be ready to work at any time, and could leave the apartment for a certain time, e.g., to meet friends or go for a walk. The potential free time was estimated at three hours, so the regional court awarded the claimant wages based on 21 hours of on-call duty per calendar day.

The court also held that it is the employer’s responsibility—the employment agency—to monitor the claimant’s working hours and ensure that the scope of services does not lead to excessive workload. No agreement was made with Mrs Z. on a concrete list of services with realistic deadlines and clear rules specifying when the claimant was available and when not. The claimant received no clear instructions on when she must be available for Mrs Z. or when she could or should refuse care requests without further explanation. The contract used vague clauses such as “mutual agreement” and “on-site,” which the court interpreted as the employer not imposing any specific working time.

The Berlin Regional Labour Court ruled that the constitutional right to choose one’s profession and place of work, and to exercise that choice under appropriate conditions, also applies to posted workers, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits any discrimination within the EU based on nationality.

It would not be consistent with the above-mentioned state protection obligation if civil law and its general clauses were interpreted in a way that would allow the employer, by simple contractual agreement, to evade the obligation to pay wages for work that the employer necessitates.

Deductions for board and lodging

Although common practice in the social care market, the labour court held in the case that deductions for board and lodging, which Mrs Z. was obliged to provide to the claimant, should not be made. Remuneration in kind does not constitute payment within the meaning of the German Minimum Wage Act.

The judgment challenges the so-called 24-hour care model and the associated violation of workers’ rights. On the other hand, the Berlin Regional Labour Court’s ruling may result in foreign agencies no longer finding it profitable to engage workers from Eastern Europe due to rising costs. It is possible that in the near future, more caregivers will claim their due wages, potentially leading to a crisis in the social care services market in Germany, where posted workers constitute a significant share.

New employer obligations just around the corner. The Sejm has passed an amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Parliamentary amendments

In December, we reported that the Ministry of Finance submitted a draft amendment to the Act on counteracting money laundering and financing of terrorism and certain other Acts. The draft envisaged, among other things, imposing on obliged institutions the necessity to carry out new reporting obligations and to classify transactions conducted.

The Sejm passed the amendment on 25 February, together with two clarifying amendments. The amendment is related to the need to implement EU directives. Its main aim is to implement the so-called fifth EU AML Directive, which seeks to increase the transparency of financial flows and enhance the effectiveness of authorities detecting funds originating from criminal activity or serving terrorist activities.

The changes include the addition of a new category of obliged institutions, namely entrepreneurs within the meaning of the Act of 6 March 2018 – Entrepreneurs’ Law (Journal of Laws 2019, items 1292 and 1495, and 2020, items 424 and 1086), whose core business activity is the provision of services consisting of preparing declarations, keeping tax books, providing advice, opinions, or explanations regarding tax or customs law provisions, who are not other obliged institutions;” as well as entrepreneurs within the meaning of the Act of 6 March 2018 – Entrepreneurs’ Law conducting activities consisting of:
a) trading or brokering trade in works of art, collectibles and antiques within the meaning of Article 120(1)(1–3) of the Act of 11 March 2004 on goods and services tax (Journal of Laws 2020, item 106, as amended3)), including when such activities are conducted:
– in art galleries or auction houses, or
– using a free port, understood as a zone or premises where goods are treated as not being within the customs territory of the Member States or third countries, including using a free customs zone,
b) storing works of art, collectibles and antiques within the meaning of Article 120(1)(1–3) of the Act of 11 March 2004 on goods and services tax, when such activity is conducted using a free port, referred to in point a dash two – in relation to transactions with a value equal to or exceeding the equivalent of €10,000, regardless of whether the transaction is carried out as a single operation or several operations that appear to be connected;”

 

Who is the beneficial owner?

According to the draft, this means any natural person who directly or indirectly exercises control over the client through rights arising from legal or factual circumstances, enabling decisive influence over the activities or actions undertaken by the client, or any natural person on whose behalf business relationships are established or occasional transactions are conducted, including:
a) in the case of a legal person other than a company whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market subject to disclosure requirements under European Union law or equivalent third country law:
– a natural person who is a shareholder holding ownership of more than 25% of the total number of shares or stocks of that legal person,
– a natural person holding more than 25% of the total voting rights in the governing body of that legal person, also as a pledgee or usufructuary, or based on agreements with other persons entitled to vote,
– a natural person exercising control over the legal person or legal persons that collectively hold ownership of more than 25% of the total number of shares or stocks, or collectively hold more than 25% of the total voting rights in the governing body of that legal person, also as a pledgee or usufructuary, or based on agreements with other persons entitled to vote,
– a natural person exercising control over the legal person through powers referred to in Article 3(1)(37) of the Act of 29 September 1994 on accounting (Journal of Laws 2019, item 351, as amended4)),
– a natural person holding a senior managerial position where there is documented inability to identify or doubts as to the identity of the natural persons referred to in the first to fourth dashes, and in cases where no suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing has been found,
b) in the case of a trust:
– the settlor,
– the trustee,
– the supervisor, if appointed,
– the beneficiary or – where the natural persons benefiting from the trust have not yet been identified – a group of persons in whose main interest the trust was created or operates,
– another person exercising control over the trust,
– another natural person with rights or obligations equivalent to those referred to in the first to fifth dashes,
c) in the case of a natural person conducting business activity, where no circumstances indicating control by another natural person or persons have been found, it is assumed that such natural person is simultaneously the beneficial owner;”

Other obligations

In addition to the above obligations, obliged institutions will be required to develop internal anti-money laundering procedures, appoint an AML officer – a person responsible for implementing and complying with procedures and for providing anti-money laundering training to employees.

More information about the adopted amendment can be found on our website: https://atl-law.pl/ministerstwo-planuje-wprowadzenie-nowych-obowiazkow-dla-przedsiebiorcow-projekt-nowelizacji-ustawy-o-przeciwdzialaniu-praniu-pieniedzy/