Since the first judgments of 14 March 2017 concerning religious symbols in the workplace (C-157/15 and C-188/15), the CJEU has consistently followed a line of case law favorable to the principle of neutrality. The authors argue that in its rulings, the CJEU differentiates between the private and public sectors. In the case of the private sector, an entrepreneur's desire to be perceived by customers as neutral is a legitimate goal (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). However, an employer must also demonstrate that there was a real need to introduce a neutrality policy, related to the objective needs or expectations of customers or the need to mitigate the risk of conflicts between employees. In the case of the public sector (public authority), striving for neutrality (including exclusionary neutrality – including in relations with other employees) is considered a justified goal without the need to demonstrate a different need.

This article investigates the possibility of applying the protective rules of jurisdiction set out in Section 5 of Chapter II of Regulation No. 1215/2012 titled "Jurisdiction over individual employment contracts", in disputes between an employee and the parent company, despite the fact that the parties are not directly bounded by employment contract. Based on the analysis of the case law of the CJEU, the author argues that the protective rules of jurisdiction can be invoked even if there is no formal agreement between the parties to the dispute, howewer there is a relationship of subordination between them. The author positively assesses the search for an actual employer, however she criticizes the interpretation of the employment contract within the meaning of Regulation 1215/2012 based solely on subordination. 

The Constitution of the Republic of Poland provides for the right to bargain and includes it among the fundamental human rights (freedoms). However, the Constitution of the Republic of Poland does not determine the subjective scope of the right to bargain as this scope is shaped by international standards. It follows from Article 59 (4) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, that the right to bargain may be subject only statutory limitations only to the extent permitted by international agreements binding Poland. Meanwhile, the subjective scope of the right to collective bargaining defined in the standards of the International Labour Organization differs from the subjective scope of this right resulting from the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this context, the aim of the article to justify the thesis that meeting the requirements of international law is in conflict with EU law.

In January 2021, The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to adopt as soon as possible a directive establishing a so-called right to disconnect for all workers using digital tools for work purposes, a draft of which is annexed to the resolution. The right to disconnect is understood as the exclusion of digital tools for professional purposes outside of working time. The purpose of this article is to discuss the proposed legal framework for the right to disconnect and highlight the challenges that the right to disconnect must face. Analyzing the proposals of the European Parliament, the author draws attention, inter alia, to the doubts concerning the subjective scope of the right to disconnect. The biggest challenges include establishing practical arrangements for disabling digital tools, especially in the case of flexible working time arrangements, enterprises operating internationally and/or with continuous operations that prevent server shutdowns. The author also points out that the implementation of the right to disconnect cannot be focused on technical and organizational solutions but requires that the problem of workload and time management be solved in accordance with the right to disconnect.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 states that air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation for cancelled flights, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Although that regulation does not expressly define the concept of "extraordinary circumstances”, the EU legislatureindicated that it may occur in the event of events such as those mentioned in recital 14 of that regulation. This recital mentions, inter alia,”strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier”. However, the CJEU takes the position that a strike by the air carier`s own employees can not be deemed as an extraordinary circumstance, except when the implementation of employees' requests is beyond its competence and requires legislative action. The article presents the rulings of the CJEU and arguments supporting the thesis that the reasoning adopted by the Court leads to the violation of the freedom to conduct a business (established in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the employer's right of negotiation (enshrined in Article 28 of the Charter).