Pursuant to Article 30 § 4 of the Labour Code, when
terminating a contract of employment concluded for an indefinite term, the employer is required to
provide in the termination notice the grounds for
termination of the employment relationship. The
grounds for termination must be specific and true,
they should provide precise indication of the
circumstances justifying termination of the
employment relationship. In the event of a dispute
before the court the identification of adequate
grounds for termination of a contract concluded for
an indefinite term is often decisive for the outcome
of the case.
The guidance as to the expediency of termination is
offered by the Supreme Court case-law, among
others by the resolution of the Supreme Court of 27
June 1985 (III PZP 10/85). According to its most
crucial points, the assessment as to whether or not a
termination of the employment contract is expedient
should take into account the valid interests of the
employing establishment and the attributes of the
employee inherent in the employment relationship.
Other circumstances of the employee, unrelated to
the employment relationship, (e.g. involving his or
her family, financial situation, health, or age) can in
exceptional cases provide the grounds for finding,
pursuant to Article 8 of the Labour Code,
termination to be contrary to public policy. The
Supreme Court has also consistently held that a
scheduled reduction of employment at the company
(downsizing) can provide legitimate grounds for
termination of the employment relationship.
If a termination of the employment relationship is for
reasons of downsizing, the labour court is not
competent to examine if the employer’s decision to
reduce employment is expedient and justified
(resolution of the Supreme Court sitting as a full
court of 27 June 1985 (III PZP 10/85), argument IX
and SC judgements of 16 October 1992 (I PRN
40/92) and of 3 November 2010 (I PK 93/10)). It
may only check if the reduction of the headcount has
actually taken place. The court is entitled to assess
the validity of the criteria for selecting the employees
to be made redundant, however, the need to make
comparisons between different employees arises
mainly when one or more from among a larger
number of identical positions are being eliminated
and the employees to be terminated need to be
identified.
If the downsizing results from elimination of a
position, it is sufficient for the decision to be at such
an advanced stage that no doubt arises as to it actually happening. This has been stated by the
Supreme Court in its judgement of 13 October 1999
(I PKN 290/99). The Supreme Court held that an
employment contract termination on the grounds of
e.g. organisational streamlining, reduction of
employment, elimination of a position, etc. does not
have to coincide in time with their actual occurrence.
The existence of a position on the date of termination
notice does not amount to the absence of the actual
grounds for termination, providing that within the
notice period or a short time afterwards the position
is indeed eliminated due to these changes.
Further, according to SC judgements of 16
December 2008 (I PK 86/08) and 8 January 2007 (I
PK 187/06), when terminating an employment
contract, the employer is required to specify why
downsizing justifies making the relevant employee
redundant. The employer can list several reasons for
termination, none of which individually provides
grounds for such decision but which in aggregate
warrant the termination. The termination has grounds
if at least one of the reasons listed by the employer is
justified (SC judgement of 5 October 2005, I PK
61/05).
MILLER, CANFIELD,
W. BABICKI, A. CHEŁCHOWSKI I WSPÓLNICY SP.K.
ul. Batorego 28-32
81-366 Gdynia
Tel. +48 58 782-0050
Fax +48 58 782-0060
gdynia@pl.millercanfield.com
ul. Nowogrodzka 11
00-513 Warszawa
Tel. +48 22 447-4300
Fax +48 22 447-4301
warszawa@pl.millercanfield.com
ul. Św. Mikołaja 7
50-125 Wrocław
Tel. +48 71 337-6700
Fax +48 71 337-6701
wroclaw@pl.millercanfield.com
Disclaimer: This publication has been prepared for clients and professional associates of Miller Canfield. It is intended to provide only a summary of certain recent legal
developments of selected areas of law. For this reason the information contained in this publication should not form the basis of any decision as to a particular course of
action; nor should it be relied on as legal advice or regarded as a substitute for detailed advice in individual cases. The services of a competent professional adviser
should be obtained in each instance so that the applicability of the relevant legislation or other legal development to the particular facts can be verified.