Labour and Social Security Journal 05/2025

Abstract The Polish act on whistleblower protection limits the material scope of whistleblowing to breaches of law falling within the closed catalogue of fields included in it. Such a solution results in the failure to provide under the terms of this act protection to persons who report other breaches of law, the detection and combating of which is in the public interest, such as in particular criminal offences or misdemeanours which are not comprised within the aforementioned catalogue, violations of human rights in enterprises, as well as acts or omissions which pose a threat to the human life, health or safety. The article presents proposals for changes which aim to eliminate this asymmetry in protection of persons disclosing breaches of law.

This paper presents an analysis of the evolution of the concept of social security in the context of social changes taking place in the era of post-industrial society. The author wonders whether the traditional model of "social security", derived from the realities of the industrial era, is now becoming insufficient in the face of the challenges of the modern world. Therefore, they propose replacing it with a more adequate concept of "social resilience".

Abstract In the light of the planned changes involving the inclusion of periods of employment on grounds other than the employment relationship in the seniority, the author analyzes the issue of seniority from a theoretical perspective. This article shows the essence of seniority and its impact on employee rights. The author presents possible normative approaches to the relationship between seniority and employee rights in a model approach. The aim of the article is also to show how the planned changes translate into employment issues in general.

Using and disseminating an employee's image during the course of employment has become one of the primary tools for promoting both the employee and the employer. Employee images are frequently used in internal and external communications, as well as on websites. Training materials, which may be used both internally and externally in the media, often include the employee's likeness, thereby dis seminating their personal image. However, the use of images after the termination of the employment relationship remains a complex issue. Consent for the use of the image does not automatically expire with the end of employment; the employee must submit a separate statement to withdraw their consent. Once such a statement is submitted, the employer must cease using and disseminating the employee's image and need to be aware of the potential legal consequences of continued use, including those under civil law and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Pursuant to Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train drivers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system in the Community, Member States shall ensure the adoption of necessary measures to prevent another railway undertaking or infrastructure manager from benefiting from the investments made by a railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in the training of a train driver, in cases where the driver voluntarily leaves to join the other railway undertaking or infrastructure manager. The legal interest protected by the rule derived from Article 24(1) of the Directive is the financial interest of the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in the event of a trained candidate’s voluntary resignation and move to a competitor. The Polish legislator implemented Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59 in Article 22c(1) of the Railway Transport Act, which provides, that a railway undertaking or infrastructure manager may enter into an agreement with a train driver candidate, obliging the candidate to reimburse part or all of the training costs if the employment contract or other legal relationship binding the candidate with the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager is terminated before a specified date for reasons attributable to the candidate. This provision therefore defines the basis for claiming reimbursement of training costs in a significantly broader manner. A literal interpretation of this provision, detached from Directive 2007/59, would justify the reimbursement of training costs to the railway undertaking or infrastructure manager in almost every case where the candidate fails to complete the training, regardless of the reason. However, such a literal interpretation of Article 22c(1) of the Railway Transport Act leads to a violation of EU law. The authors of the article point out, firstly, the contradiction with the objective of Directive 2007/59, which was to protect railway undertakings and infrastructure managers only in cases where a trained candidate joins a competing entity. The Polish legislator, meanwhile, has provided much broader financial protection to the above-mentioned entities— protection that does not arise from the wording or, more importantly, the objective of Directive 2007/59. At the same time, such an implementation must be assessed as creating a potential obstacle to the free movement of workers. The possibility of burdening a train driver candidate with the obligation to reimburse training costs (in practice, several tens of thousands of zlotys) is undoubtedly a significant factor in the decision to choose a Polish railway undertaking or infrastructure manager as an employer. For comparison, German regulations did not introduce any new liability regime for reimbursement of costs, referring only to the content of existing legal provisions. The general grounds for employee liability are based on the principle of fault, making the German system of liability for training costs significantly more favorable. From this perspective, the implementation of Article 24(1) of Directive 2007/59 must be assessed as a violation of EU law. Consequently, the question arises as to what measures a national court should apply in a case concerning the reimbursement of training costs. The authors of this article attempt to answer this question in light of an in-depth analysis of the interpretation of the provisions of Directive 2007/59 and the Polish Railway Transport Act.

In the commentary to the judgment of 11 April 2024, II PSKP 86/22 (OSNP 2024/9/91), the Supreme Court's view was approved that sending an employer a declaration of termination of an employment contract to an employee by text message does not meet the requirement of written form if it is not accompanied by a secure electronic signature (Article 30 § 3 of the Labor Code). Such a declaration should be submitted in writing within the meaning of Article 78 of the Civil Code in connection with Article 300 of the Labor Code. Submitting this declaration by fax, telegram, text message, MMS, or e-mail does not satisfy this form. The electronic form of Article 781 of the Civil Code is equivalent to written form, but its structural element is a secure electronic signature. However, an SMS message does not contain it.

Abstract The author discusses a precedent-setting decision of the Court (judgment of 4 December 2024, II PSKP 18/24), which clarifies that the provision of Article 171 § 1 in connection with Article 57 § 4 and Art. 51 § 1 second sentence of the Labour Code can be interpreted pro unionistically so as to ensure that a reinstated employee is entitled to a cash equivalent for unused annual leave acquired during the period of unemployment.

On January 14, 2025, in case C-19/23, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou recommended that the Court of Justice of the EU annul Directive 2022/2041 on adequate minimum wages in its entirety. According to the Advocate General, the Directive was adopted ultra vires. His argument, based on a broad interpretation of the Union's competence exclusion in relation to wages (Article 153(5) TFEU), diverges from the Court's established interpretation. The aim of this paper is to present the main points of the Opinion, which raises questions about the delicate balance, developed over the years, between the EU's competences and the sovereignty of Member States in the area of social policy.