II PK 192/07
Généré par l'IA
Supreme Court dismisses union worker's severance claim when employment ends by law, not employer action.
Pologne (PL)
Synthèse Legislator
Généré par l'IAThe 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.
Regeste Legislator
Généré par l'IAArt. 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.
Mots-clés
Généré par l'IA
union member protection
termination by law
academic employment
severance pay
employer action
legal mandate
labor law
Dispositions légales citées
Généré par l'IAArt. 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
Jurisprudence citée
Généré par l'IAI PKN 497/98
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; union protection does not apply to age-based termination of academic staff.
I PK 208/03
Religious teacher dismissal for revoked religious instruction is not protected by union law consent rules.
II PK 21/05
Supreme Court dismisses union member's appeal regarding dismissal without union consent due to failed qualification.
V CSK 11/06
RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ Dnia 26 kwietnia 2006 r.
V CSK 364/06
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.