Court held that naming a contract 'service contract' does not prevent it from being classified as an employment contract under Polish law.

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal filed by a construction company against a labor court judgment. The lower courts established that the plaintiff, despite signing monthly service contracts, worked as a mason's assistant under strict subordination, receiving fixed monthly wages and performing daily tasks without responsibility for results. The court ruled that the parties' actual conduct and the nature of the work, rather than the contract's label, determine the legal relationship, thereby upholding the finding of an employment contract.