I PK 210/09
AI generated
Supreme Court dismissed appeal on outsourcing not constituting transfer of business under Labor Code Art. 231.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by an employee against a hospital's termination of her employment contract. The court found that outsourcing specific legal tasks to an external firm did not amount to a transfer of the business unit under Article 231 of the Labor Code. Consequently, the termination was deemed lawful as no substantial assets, staff, or clients were transferred, and the employee did not seek continuity of employment with the outsourced entity.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 231 § 1 k.p.; Outsourcing specific tasks to an external provider does not constitute a transfer of the business unit unless accompanied by a comprehensive transfer of assets, personnel, and clients.
Keywords
AI generated
transfer of business
outsourcing legal tasks
labor code article 231
continuity of employment
termination of contract
casation appeal
employee protection
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 231 § 1 k.p.
Art. 398 § 14 k.p.c.
Art. 98 § 1 k.p.c.
§ 12 ust. 4 pkt 2 rozporządzenia Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dnia 28 września 2002 r.
art. 231 § 1 k.p
art. 361 § 1 k.p
art. 231 § 6 k.p
art. 231 k.p
art. 45 § 1 k.p
art. 39813 § 2 k.p.c
Cited Case Law
AI generatedI PKN 733/00
Termination due to job elimination is valid if the process is sufficiently advanced, even without formal regulation changes.
II PK 69/04
Termination of employment by former employer after legal transfer does not end the labor relationship.
I PK 103/04
Transfer of business premises automatically transfers employees, preventing the former employer from terminating their contracts.
II PK 104/05
Union executive dismissed from job; court applies general termination rules, not special union protection clauses.
I PK 323/06
Supreme Court dismissed cassation appeal regarding unpaid vacation compensation after factory transfer to new employer.
I PK 456/02
Supreme Court quashes labor dispute verdict regarding municipal health task transfer and employer identity. The court found the employer was the municipality, not the health facility. The case is remanded for retrial to determine the correct employer. The court ruled that the municipality, not the health facility, was the employer because the tasks were not transferred to the facility. The court held that the municipality, not the health facility, was the employer because the tasks were not transferred to the facility. The court held that the municipality, not the health facility, was the employer because the tasks were not transferred to the facility.
II PK 391/04
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding employer identity in labor dispute over facility transfer. Appeal rejected due to lack of factual errors in lower court's findings.
I PK 75/06
Labor law ruling: Failure to consult unions does not invalidate transfer of workplace to new employer.
I PK 212/06
Supreme Court dismissed cassation, ruling that 'part of a workplace' includes non-material tasks like cleaning duties.
I PK 80/07
Supreme Court allows appeal regarding transfer of part of workplace to new employer under Art. 231 § 1 k.p.