I PKN 571/97
AI generated
Supreme Court dismisses reinstatement claim for selling private drugs during work, allowing damages instead.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court of Poland partially reversed a lower court's decision to reinstate a veterinarian employee who sold private medications during official duties. While the court acknowledged the employee's actions constituted a serious breach of duty, it held that reinstatement was inappropriate because the misconduct lacked the exceptional severity required by law. Consequently, the court ordered the employee's reinstatement but remanded the case to determine the specific damages owed for the period of unemployment.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 52 Kodeksu pracy; Art. 8 Konstytucji: Reinstatement of an employee after dismissal for serious breach of duty is only permissible if the misconduct exhibits exceptional severity, not merely a serious violation.
Keywords
AI generated
reinstatement of employee
serious breach of duty
exceptional severity
social-economic purpose
labor law interpretation
damages for unemployment
Supreme Court ruling
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 52 Kodeksu pracy
Art. 8 Konstytucji
Art. 477 1 § 2 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego
Art. 393 15 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego
Art. 393 13 § 1 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego
Art. 108 § 2 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego
Cited Case Law
AI generatedI PKN 54/97
Supreme Court dismisses appeal, awarding damages instead of reinstatement due to conflict with social-economic purpose of labor law.
I PKN 23/97
Supreme Court dismisses appeal allowing damages instead of reinstatement for union leader dismissed for drinking.
I PKN 17/97
Labor union formation for job security overrides employee reinstatement claims under social purpose of law.
I PZP 19/96
I PRN 5/96
Supreme Court dismisses extraordinary review for requesting reinstatement after union committee selection and dismissal.
I PRN 103/95
Special union protection does not bar labor court from ex officio choosing alternative claims if primary claim is unreasonable.
I PZP 40/93