The Whistleblower Protection Act, which recently came into force, lists temporary workers among the people who can report a violation of the law and obtain whistleblower status. However, the threeparties formula of temporary employment, raises numerous doubts regarding the status of a temporary employee as a whistleblower. This article is an attempt to clarify these doubts, especially in terms of indicating in which of the entities involved in the temporary employment relationship may obtain the status of a whistleblower, what is the subjective and objective scope of protection he is entitled to in this respect, and which of the entities involved in the temporary employment relationship is liable for violating the prohibition of taking retaliatory actions against a whistleblower.

Death of entrepreneur causes very far reaching consequences for the existence of employment relationship, including its expiry, unless the deceased entrepreneur's enterprise is transferred to his heirs or other subjects. In 2018, the legislator introduced the new institution to the Polish legal system – successive management of an enterprise of a natural person – due to facilitate the maintenance of operating the enterprise after the death of entrepreneur being the natural person. In consequence also art. 631 of Labour Code was significantly amended. This article provides the profound legal analysis of new regulation of consequences of entrepreneur's death for the continuity of employment relationships; it contains also the attempt of assessment of the new regulations.

Abstract The article focuses on the problem of the contradiction between the model of temporary employment declared by the legislator, based on the principle of causality and subsidiarity (as expressed in Article 2(3) of the Act on the employment of temporary workers), and the practice of using temporary employment, in which the scope of using this form employment is much wider. The author analyzes the current legal status and possible legal protection measures in the event of using temporary employment for non-temporary work, and – on the background of the provisions of Directive 2008/104/EC – presents possible directions of legislative changes aimed at eliminating the indicated contradiction.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the issues of protection of claims of employees employed in civil partnerships in the event of the employer's insolvency. The subject matter has been analyzed in two variants — in the first one it was assumed that the employer of employees is a civil partnership. In the second — that the collective employer are partners of a civil partnership. The author shows that the solutions of the Act on the Protection of Employee Claims in the Event of Employer Insolvency are not relevant to the structure of a civil partnership and the related difficulties in obtaining benefits from FGŚP, which may be encountered by employees of these companies. As a result of the research, de lege ferenda conclusions were formulated aimed at facilitating the receipt of benefits by employees employed in civil partnerships.

One of the solutions introduced by the anti-crisis shield to protect the interests of the employer in the conditions of the coronavirus epidemic and the economic crisis it causes is the possibility of suspending the obligation to establish and operate the company's social benefits fund and the obligation to pay holiday benefits. Such a possibility was introduced in art. 15ge of the anti-crisis shield. The purpose of this article is to make an in-depth and critical analysis of these provisions. It is a very specific regulation, and some of its aspects raise serious theoretical and practical reservation.

The unprecedented event, which is the global coronavirus pandemic, resulted in the adoption and implementation of a number of solutions aimed at preventing and combating the epidemic and its negative social, economic and health consequences in the form of the so-called Anti-Crisis Shield. One of the elements of the Anti-Crisis Shield are specific solutions in the field of labour law, among which anti-crisis collective agreements take a prominent place. The Anti-Crisis Shield enables conclusion of an agreement on the reduction of working time or economic stoppage, an agreement on the application of less favorable terms of employment than those resulting from employment contracts concluded with employees, an agreement on the introduction of an equivalent working time system. This article is an attempt of critical analysis of the collective agreements introduced by the Anti-Crisis Shield and cautious assessment of their social and economic effects.

This article deals with the problems related to protection of board members in case of the insolvency of their employer. The possibility of employing management board members of companies on the basis of employment relationship, grounded in Polish labour law, implies their protection in the event of the insolvency of the employer. Under the current legislation, members of management boards who are employees (or employed on the base of civil contract) are treated in the same way as all other employees. The Act does not recognize their special status — the impact they could have on rising insolvency of the company, greater opportunities for selfprotection of their interests and the ability to influence their employee status. This raises the risk of taking advantage of their particular position and potential abuses. It is particularly visible in the case of management board members who are also the company's majority shareholders. The author wonders how the legislator may take into account the special status of board members in the Act on the protection of employees claims in case of insolvency of the employer, in particular in terms of preventing potential abuses.

This article is an analysis of the legal position of the only representative company trade union organization, especially as a participant in collective bargaining. The reason for addressing this issue is, in particular, the introduction of art. 30 paragraph 7 to the Trade Union Act. A closer look at the position of the only representative trade union organization shows that it differs depending on the type of negotiations in which the trade union organization participates. These differences cannot always be rationally explained. The issues discussed in this article also have considerable practical significance - the situation in which there is only one representative company trade union organization is quite common in practice, and the diversity of the legal position of such organization according to not entirely clear criteria causes quite serious practical problems.