I PKN 259/98
AI generated
Supreme Court dismissed appeal where employer terminated drunk worker before union response due to union's non-defense policy.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the employee's cassation appeal seeking reinstatement after his dismissal for drunkenness. The lower courts found the employer validly terminated the contract under Article 52 § 1 of the Labor Code, noting the employee left work intoxicated and failed to prove sobriety. Although the employer notified the union before dismissal, the court ruled this did not constitute an abuse of rights because the local union had a standing policy not to defend employees caught drinking on site.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 52 § 3 KP; Art. 8 KP: Termination before union response constitutes abuse of rights only if the union would have opposed the dismissal; otherwise, the employer's failure to wait is irrelevant.
Keywords
AI generated
abuse of rights
labor code termination
union notification duty
drunkenness at work
reinstatement claim
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 52 § 3 KP
Art. 8 KP
Art. 393 § 11 KPC
Art. 393 § 12 KPC