Companies do not always choose what is favorable for them – SSW experts’ commentary in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna
Our experts, Marcin Cetnarowicz and Bartosz Tomanek, comment on the issue of company regulations in Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (Daily Legal Review).
“It can be concluded from these provisions that the remuneration regulations are only temporary and should apply until the agreement is concluded,”
explains Marcin Cetnarowicz. In addition, he points out that the issue of preference for the system over remuneration regulations in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court is not clear.
“One may find the view that the system of company sources of labor law regulating the issue of remuneration may consist of several elements in certain situations at a given employer, i.e. the system and, having separate legal existence, bonus regulations, to which the regulations regarding remuneration regulations should apply,”
he adds, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of the 6th of December 2005, act reference number III PK 91/05, and resolution of June 24th, 1998, Act reference number III ZP 14/98.
“A considerable part of the remuneration regulations is implemented in practice only because they are required by law and not because of the desire to actually regulate the issue of remuneration in the company. Often, they simply duplicate the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding remuneration principles, which in extreme cases may result in the recognition that a given act does not constitute remuneration regulations at all,”
emphasizes Marcin Cetnarowicz.
For the employees themselves, it does not matter whether the company has an arrangement or remuneration regulations. Both documents should specify the rules for determining the basic remuneration and the additional benefits from the employment relationship. The difference only appears at the employer level. If the employer has at least one trade union organization, the arrangement for regulating the issue of remuneration seems to be better .
“It’s a more flexible form. In the event of a change in the situation, e.g. the deterioration of the company’s financial condition, the arrangement can always be terminated: article 2417 paragraph 1 item 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly allows for a unilateral notice by the employer. On the other hand, it is problematic to unilaterally repeal the remuneration regulations when the employer is represented by a trade union organization. The regulations do not explicitly provide for such a possibility, which many experts assess as a loophole in the regulation which requires the intervention the legislature. Therefore, the employer may be sentenced to the grace or disgrace of a union,”
notes Bartosz Tomanek, adding that unilateral repeal of the regulations not only remains legally questionable, but also may expose the employer to long-term litigation with employees who would question such a move.
“TK noted that the provisions do not provide for the possibility of the employer repealing the regulations without the consent of the unions, but pointed out that this gap should be filled by the legislature, not the tribunal,”
emphasizes Bartosz Tomanek.
Full text available Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (Daily Legal Review) (access for registered subscribers)
