In March of this year, I wrote about an outrageous case involving an example of the improper application of a disciplinary penalty at the 1st Branch of ZUS Warsaw. Outrageous, because in my assessment, such action constitutes a flagrant violation of employee rights in a public institution that should be an absolute example of proper application of the Labor Code. Instead, we are dealing with the use of legal instruments not to punish an employee for violating order regulations, but for any form of objection or having a different opinion from the branch management.
Dismissal of ZUS appeal
Now, I can report on the successful conclusion of this case. Today, the firm received the judgment of the Regional Court of July 27, 2022, dismissing the appeal of the 1st Branch of ZUS Warsaw. This means that the first instance judgment becomes final, and the actions of the Director of the 1st Branch of ZUS in Warsaw, who signed the decision to impose the aforementioned disciplinary penalty, were found to be erroneous and made without legal basis.
How the management of the 1st Branch of ZUS understands “mutual trust”
I have already written about the legal issues in this case, and I thought that now I would just directly quote two excerpts from the response to the ZUS appeal, which best – in my opinion – illustrate how dangerous the approach adopted by the management of the 1st Branch of ZUS in Warsaw is for ZUS employees.
Excerpt 1:
“In its appeal, the defendant essentially does not seem to polemicize directly with the understanding of the essence of disciplinary penalties presented by the District Court, but upon closer reading of the appeal, it appears that it takes the position that the employer can essentially impose a disciplinary penalty for any action of the employee that the employer subjectively considers improper. The defendant’s logic boils down to: disciplinary penalties can be imposed for any violations of work order and organization; any action of the employee that does not meet the employer’s expectations constitutes such a violation; therefore, disciplinary penalties can be imposed on the employee for essentially any action that the employer freely deems to be a violation of duties.
In other words: a labor camp where the employer can impose penalties on the employee for any violations of the rules prevailing in the workplace – assessed at the employer’s free discretion, even without the employee’s fault (!).”
Excerpt 2:
“Finally, it is worth referring to the fragment of the appeal in which the defendant emphasizes that ‘the employment relationship is a personal relationship between the employer and the employee, of a special character, and its foundation is mutual trust.’ From this undisputedly accurate formulation, the defendant surprisingly concludes that any action not to the employer’s liking may justify imposing a sanction on the employee in the form of a disciplinary penalty.
This principle of mutual trust, as can be seen, only applies in one direction, since the plaintiff was ‘asked’ to hand over her mobile phone before the meeting at which she was given the reprimand – an action aimed at intimidation and showing the state of ‘mutual trust’ in the plaintiff’s workplace.”
Conclusions from the case
This is only a small victory in the fight for ZUS to be a friendly and professional workplace, but in my opinion an extremely important one for many employees of this institution. It is a signal to them that it is worth fighting for their rights. Especially since they are the foundation of this institution and not the directors who violate employee rights. If ZUS employees realize this and, acting together, stand up for their rights, I am convinced that they are able to win such a legal battle and change a lot in their workplace.
Paweł Osiński
Attorney dealing with employee rights violations and economic and official crimes