1. The employee’s lie regarding stay abroad during Pandemia justifies disciplinary dismissal – judgment of the District Court in Olsztyn of 29.01.2021. : IV PA 79/20
The judgment of the District Court in Olsztyn is a precedent, because it decides whether the employer has the right to dismiss an employee who has concealed information about foreign travel during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The facts of the case concerns a disciplinary dismissal of an employee who at the beginning of the pandemic (April 2020) concealed information about his employer about staying abroad. According to the employer, the employee’s lie in this matter was a serious violation of the basic employee obligations justifying the termination of the contract without notice. By concealing the fact of staying abroad, the employee did not comply with the internal principles of employer aimed at limiting infections in the workplace.
2. The concept of an employee in the provisions on the social insurance system. Internet sales in capital and personal -related companies – Supreme Court Resolution of 26 August 2021, reference number: III PPO 3/21
The Supreme Court resolution concerned the following facts. Company A has been separated from the structures of Company B to conduct online sales of its products. On-line sales took place as needed, most often in pre-Christmas or holiday periods. Company B did not charge social and health insurance contributions on the remuneration of its employees obtained from these orders. This proceedings were questioned by ZUS and the Court of First Instance.
The Supreme Court decided that the concept of “performance of work for the employer” contained in the provision in question also covers the performance of mandate contracts concluded by an employee with a company selling goods to the employer on the Internet (company A). For mandate contracts to be covered by the social insurance obligation, it is sufficient that the companies were related personally or by capital. This also applies to cases when the scope of obligations under the contract of mandate is different from the obligations covered by the employment contract, and the place of performance of the contract is outside the place of performance of the employment contract.. It is sufficient to be sufficient to cover the mandate agreements that the companies were connected with each other in person or capital. This also applies to cases where the scope of obligations arising from the mandate contract is different from the obligations covered by the employment contract, and the place of performance of the order is outside the place of provision of the employment contract.
3. Resolution of the composition of seven judges of the Supreme Court On September 25, 2019 (reference number III PPO 6/19) in accordance with art. 68 para. 1 item 2 of the Pensioning Act for children over 16 years of age is entitled to a survivor’s pension until they have completed school, but not longer than to reach 25 years of life. In turn, from art. 68 para. 2 of the Retirement and Turent Act shows that when a child has reached 25 years of life, being at the last year of study at a university, then the right to a survivor’s pension is prolonged to the end of this year of study.
Send by dr Łucja Kobroń-Gąsiorowska (adwokat, Kraków)