The subject of the commentary is the issue of the correctness of the Polish Supreme Court's judgment of September 20, 2023, 20/09/2023, II PSKP 30/22, in the light of the following groups of issues that emerge while reading it: the difference between the objective correction of the employee's action and the objective change of his action; abuse of the labour law procedural entitlement by the defendant employer; characteristics of an employee's appeal against the employer's unilateral declaration of termination (declaration of expiry) of the employment relationship; abuse of the substantive labour law entitlement by the plaintiff employee and the limitation or prescription of this entitlement.

On April 26, 2023, the Polish Supreme Court issued a landmark resolution in case III PZP 6/22. This decision is part of the more general framework of the problem of choosing between adjudication by a judicial panel and adjudication by a single judge in specific courts. These are such the courts that proceed on the basis of the Civil Procedure Code, and therefore in particular in labour and social security cases.. As indicated in this Article, the valuable argumentation presented in this resolution of the Polish Supreme Court will, to a large extent, remain valid also in the longer term, despite the rapid changes in the Polish legal culture that have already taken place after its issuing and that may still occur in the future.

The Author presents in this Article the proposal of the approach that is different than up to now accepted by the Polish Constitutional Court (CC), based on of the 2005 and 2007 judgements, to the question, who in the text of the Polish Constitition (PC) is the nonprofessional judge, in particular the "ławnik" of the labour court or the social security court. The approach of the CC is up to now treated as correct, also by those Polish legal scholars who present critical point of view about what they define as Polish constitutional crisis (what has been started from the process of the change of the political power in 2015). According to the Author, in turn, the non-professional judge in the meaning of the Polish Constitution – contrary to the abovementioned jurisprudence of the CC – is not merely the "judge-like person"; whereas he/she is the judge in its fullest sense of the word, identical to the professional judge. Only such an exegesis of the text of the PC allows the stable existence of the civil society in the judicial power of such a state which wants to be the state of the rule of law, and does not wish to become the state of the rule by law.

The Author presents (in the context of considerations on the connection and distinction between of substantive labour law and procedural labour law) the proposal of the approach to the legal nature of the employee's right to appeal against the employer's acts aimed at terminating the employment relationship that is different than up to now in Polish literaturę and Polish judicature. According to the Author, this employee’s right to appeal should be perceived not as a legal phenomenon from the sphere of procedural labour law, but as a legal phenomenon from the sphere of substantive labour law, having the character of a specific meta-right (meta-entitlement). Such a categorization is important not only for ”law in books”, but also for ”law in action”, giving greater legal protection to the employee.

"Aporia" is definied as the problem which, despite of the correct reasoning, it is hard to solve at current state of knowledge. Does it really have to be characterized by a very high aporeticy (in the light of contemporary legal culture) a dilemma emerging under Article 210 para. 5 of the Polish Labour Code (LC)? This legal provision excludes, in relations to the category of the employee indicated in it, an application of the provisions Article 210(1) and Article 210(2) of the LC, which relate to the right of the worker to remove himself from. among other things, existing to this employee danger for life or health at work. This question appears also within the confines the other regulations, presented as a examples in this article, in which legislator as well makes analogous "legal exclusion" (subjective exclusion or rather subjective-objective exclusion). Maybe, valuable and lasting effects can be achieved by an attempt to provide scientific, unified, non-casuistic approach to relevant issues,according to a common general standard, in relation to every category of the workers, not only to employees, and in relation not only to "rescuing" indicated in Article 210(5) of the LC, but also to other work designated to the protection of the specific legal goods, and valued equally high.