Labour and Social Security Journal 10/2024

The jurisprudence and doctrine have adopted the view that one of the prerequisites for acquiring the right to rehabilitation benefit is the requirement of the existence of uninterrupted (continued) inability to work. The authors try to present arguments that should lead to a departure from the previous interpretation in favor of the statement that an interruption in inability to work, occurring after the exhaustion of sickness benefits, does not constitute an obstacle to the granting of rehabilitation benefit. To this end, they conduct a consideration of the content of the risk protected by this benefit, as well as the linguistic and logical and purposeful interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Benefit Law, to encourage both practitioners (judges and attorneys) and representatives of science to reconsider the essence of the rehabilitation benefit.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence and large-scale application of algorithmic management has led to significant changes in the work environment. These primarily concern the ways in which work is provided and the conditions under which it is carried out, but they should be viewed much more broadly. Already today, most of the employer's tasks in relation to individual employment relationships can be performed by artificial intelligence. Since AI manages employees and de facto exercises control over them in the work process, it seems worthwhile to start a discussion on the subjectivity of AI as an employer. This is all the more important because other branches of law already discuss the subjectivity of AI, while the doctrine of labour law does not address this topic, although it is in the work environment that the impact of AI is most visible.

We can observe a worldwide, lately in France, debate on the pension age of women and men. Poland had amendments which increased the pension age to 67 years for both sexes and after that lowered the pension age to 60 years for women and 65 years for men. In my opinion a lower pension age for women is a form of sex discrimination, because men, due to genetical, objective factors, live shorter than women. Because of that men spend many years less during their retirement than women. This pension privilege to women is outdated, unconstitutional and unique in EU. It is necessary to enforce an equal pension age of 65 years for women and men.

This article presents selected proposals contained in the draft law on collective bargaining and collective agreements. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the solutions proposed by the legislator and to critically analyse them. The sphere related to the functioning of the collective bargaining method in Poland is rightly assessed negatively, hence the need for changes in this area. Conducting the analysis already at the stage of drafting works may become an impulse for a broader scientific discussion and at the same time provides an opportunity to potentially take into account the comments made by the doctrine.

Summary The article is devoted to the issue of pursuing a claim for rectification of an employment certificate, which, after the changes introduced by the amendment of May 16, 2019, can be pursued not only through a civil process, but also in non-litigious proceedings. The article presents the premises for pursuing a claim for the rectification of an employment certificate, determining the proper qualification of the case to one of the modes of judicial recognition proceedings. Then, to the necessary extent, the course of proceedings for the rectification of an employment certificate in a civil process and separately in non-litigious proceedings was discussed, highlighting the differences that are important for the course of both proceedings. The conclusions assess the applicable legal solutions.

A literal interpretation of Article 171 of the Labour Code leads to the conclusion that Polish labor law does not always implement the principles of annual rest, guaranteed by paid vacation leave. Meanwhile, the analysis of the purpose of rest, which is to ensure safe work, leads to the conclusion that such an interpretation would violate both the Constitution and EU law. This text presents legal reasoning that opposes such an interpretation.

The commented judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Białystok concerns the issue of granting caregiver allowance to a person from the circle of authorized entities in a situation where another authorized person presents a life estate agreement concluded with a person requiring care. The Provincial Administrative Court in Białystok analyzed the legal nature of the life estate agreement and its possible impact on the possibility of granting caregiver allowance. According to Article 17 of the Act on Family Benefits, it does not matter if the person providing care is bound with the person requiring it by any civil law contract, including a life estate agreement, but whether it belongs to the catalog of persons entitled to the caregiver allowance specified in Article 17 section 1 or 1a of the Act on Family Benefits. According to the author, the presented view deserves approval in the voted judgment that the conclusion of a life estate agreement between one of the persons mentioned in Art. 17 section 1 point 4 of the Act on Family Benefits and the person requiring care does not influence the assessment of meeting the conditions entitling to the caregiver allowance by another of these persons.

The author refers to the evolution of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding the possibility for trade unions to commence an action to declaratory the existence of a collective dispute (Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure). More specifically, she presents the reasoning of the most recent judgment in this area, in which the Supreme Court departed from its previous position and accepted that a trade union organisation has a legal interest in declaratory the existence of a collective dispute, which means that it is permissible for it to bring an action against an employer to declare the existence of a collective dispute on the basis of Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure.