II PK 192/07 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses union worker's severance claim when employment ends by law, not employer action.

Case Number II PK 192/07

Court / Authority Sąd Najwyższy

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 2008-03-06

Outcome Partially Allowed

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court partially overturned a lower court ruling granting severance pay to a union member whose academic contract expired by legal operation. The plaintiff argued for protection under labor union statutes, but the court distinguished between termination by employer action and automatic expiration due to specific higher education laws. Consequently, the court held that the protective severance provisions do not apply to terminations occurring solely by legal mandate.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 32 ust. 1 ustawy o związkach zawodowych; Art. 57 § 2 k.p.: Protection for union members regarding termination by employer action does not extend to cases where the employment relationship ceases solely by operation of law.

Keywords

AI generated

union member protection termination by law academic employment severance pay employer action legal mandate labor law

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Art. 32 ust. 1 ustawy z dnia 23 maja 1991 r. o związkach zawodowych

Art. 57 § 2 k.p.

Art. 95 ust. 1 pkt 3 ustawy z dnia 12 września 1990 r. o szkolnictwie wyższym

Art. 398 § 1 k.p.c.

Art. 108 § 2 k.p.c.

art. 57 § 2 k.p

art. 47 k.p

art. 462 k.p.c

art. 61 k.p.c

art. 191 ust. 1 Konstytucji RP

Cited Case Law

AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal; union protection does not apply to age-based termination of academic staff.

Religious teacher dismissal for revoked religious instruction is not protected by union law consent rules.

Supreme Court dismisses union member's appeal regarding dismissal without union consent due to failed qualification.

RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ Dnia 26 kwietnia 2006 r.

Supreme Court dismisses cassation appeal on insurance contract misrepresentation regarding non-factory immobilizer. The court allows the insurer's refusal based on false declaration. The court held that the non-factory immobilizer did not increase risk. The court ruled that the false declaration excludes coverage. The court found no procedural violation in the judgment. The court determined the appeal was inadmissible. The court rejected the claim for refund of costs.

Full text