The Labor Code obliges employees to take care of the good of the workplace. The employee is obliged to take actions for the benefit of the employer and refrain from actions that could harm the employer. However, it remains an unresolved issue to determine to what extent an entrepreneur (employer of this employee), who, for example, runs several companies and actively participates in social life (including social media) can expect the employee to participate and actively support in building their personal brand. The purpose of this study is to answer the question of whether an employer can expect an employee to be involved in activities that serve to build the employer's personal brand. The problem will become even more significant when the employer builds their personal brand also in those areas of activity that are outside the scope of the employer's activity. Can the employer therefore expect the employee to be actively involved in building their personal brand, as an entrepreneur operating in other areas as well? It is obvious that an employee may participate in building the employer's personal brand, but it is necessary to decide whether the employee can be obliged to undertake such activities.

Exceeding the business risk limit is an evaluative premise for incurring liability, the fulfilment of which is treated in jurisprudence as a violation of the law in itself, resulting in incurring liability by a member of the management board. It was established to allow board members to make more courageous (which of course does not mean completely free) decisions. Nevertheless, when analysing the structural elements that define the limits of business risk, one may have doubts whether it is actually a structure constituting a specific countertype of responsibility, or whether it paradoxically leads to the extension of this responsibility. As a consequence, the author proposes to pay attention to the known law construction of actions within the limits of permissible risk, which, as shown in the text, can be successfully applied to the relationship between a management board member and a company, setting the latter a safe area for making decisions and implementing them in the area covered by acting for the benefit of the company. The aim of the article is to show that only the use of the structure of business risk assessment in the activity of a management board member, while referring to the structure of acting within the limits of acceptable risk, allows for a clear delimitation of the board member's responsibility, guaranteeing him proper freedom in making business decisions.

The scope of the employee's liability for damage caused to the employer depends on whether the behaviour causing the damage was intentional or unintentional. The legislator clearly stated in Art. 122 of the Labour Code that if an employee intentionally caused damage, he is obliged to repair it in full, without determining the extent to which the employee who caused the damage while intoxicated should be liable for damages. As a consequence, it should be decided whether the fact of the employee's consumption of alcohol (reaching for work intoxicated) should affect the assessment of his behaviour which is the source of the damage. It should be taken into account that the very construction of the institution of employee material liability meets specific axiological assumptions (not limited to the compensatory function, as is the case with civil liability), and the very fact of being intoxicated (in the broad sense of the word) at work, already constitutes a breach of a basic employee duty. Taking into account the above circumstances, the text reconstructs the possible models of the scope of the employee's liability for damage caused while intoxicated. being after drinking alcohol does not affect the extent of liability, and the above is determined only by establishing that the employee's behaviour causing the damage was intentional. Further, the article presents a model of violation of the employee's pattern of conduct, in which the mere fact of failure to comply with the duty of sobriety actualizes full responsibility for the damage caused in this state. Finally, the third extreme model is the model of civil liability, in which the fact of being intoxicated at work causes the employee to leave the social role of the employee, which in turn means that he can no longer take advantage of the benefits of the employee responsibility regime.

Analysing the models presented above ultimately leads to the conclusion that one should opt for the model of violation of the responsible employee pattern, the more so that this model most widely meets the axiological assumptions (both for employees and employers) of limited material liability, and also does not allow for the relativization of intoxicated employees who are the source of damage. Of course, in order to unambiguously resolve the indicated problems and repeal interpretation discrepancies, the author formulates de lege ferenda postulates, clearly determining the conditions of full liability for damage caused by an intoxicated employee.

The legal norm derived from art. 31 § 1 of the Labour Code gives the employer the right to appoint a selected person to perform activities in labour law matters. Prima facie provision seems obvious and does not require any special interpretation. However, after its deeper analysis, doubts arise regarding the scope of activities for which the person is appointed and the very method of making this appointment. Although in the explanatory memorandum to the bill introducing the provision, the bill's originator indicated the purpose of the amendment, nevertheless, the wording of the provision itself does not allow to conclude that the stated purpose of the act in this regard has been achieved. According to the drafters (as well as part of the doctrine and jurisprudence), the designation within the meaning of Art. 31 § 1 of the Labour Code covers all activities both in the field of individual employment relationships as well as in the field of collective labour law, both substantive and procedural activities. However, the above statement about the broad scope of the designation seems to be too far-reaching, giving rise to a possible risk for the employer in the form of potential consequences (also economic) of actions taken by the designated person. It is also difficult to assume that the president of the management board, authorizing a human resources employee to perform activities within the scope of Art. 31 § 1 of the Labour Code, he was aware that this employee could lead a collective dispute, conclude a company collective agreement, or conduct a social dialogue with trade unions. In such a situation, it seems indispensable to refer to the provisions of the Civil Code governing the institution of power of attorney. Such action will be possible through Art. 300 of the Labour Code, because the conditions for the application of the Civil Code are met in a case not regulated by labour law. The application of the provisions on the power of attorney allows both to precisely define both the method of designation itself and its scope. The analysis carried out in the text leads to the conclusion that the correct designation is achieved through the complementary application of Art. 31 § 1 of the Labour Code and the provisions of the Civil Code. The author distinguishes two stages of designation, in the form of the "stage of abstract designation" and the "stage of concrete empowerment". Consequently, it should be stated that Art. 31 § 1 of the Labour Code establishes the employer's general competence to appoint a person, while the manner of its implementation can be implemented only through the appropriate application of the provisions of the Civil Code on the power of attorney.

The article is devoted to the problem of understanding labour protection regulated in art. 24 of the Constitution. The author advances the thesis that the constitutional protection of work is not limited only to the implementation of the protective function of labour law, but has a much wider scope of impact, also affecting economic relations. The subject of protection of the analyzed provision is work as a value in itself. According to the author, labour protection becomes a factor determining the way of defining the social market economy, as this provision cannot be understood in isolation from other constitutional norms that shape the economic system. Labour protection understood in this way contributes to more effective protection of the employee, taking into account also the interests of employers as participants of the labour market, providing work.