Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II PK 69/04 AI generated

Termination of employment by former employer after legal transfer does not end the labor relationship.

Case Number II PK 69/04
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal against a lower court decision that rejected the plaintiff's claim to return to work. The plaintiff argued that her dismissal by the former municipal school entity did not terminate her employment because the school had been legally transferred to a new employer under specific labor law provisions. The court ruled that a dismissal issued by the former employer after such a legal transfer does not dissolve the labor contract with the new employer, as the employee's status remains valid with the successor entity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 231 § 1 k.p.; Art. 3 k.p.: A termination of employment contract by a former employer, following a legal transfer of the workplace to a new employer, does not result in the dissolution of the labor relationship with the new employer.

Keywords

AI generated
legal transfer of workplace termination of employment contract successor employer liability labor relationship continuity municipal school entity dismissal by former employer labor law provisions

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 231 § 1 k.p.
Art. 3 k.p.
Art. 7 ust. 1 pkt 9 ustawy z dnia 8 marca 1990 r. o samorządzie gminnym
art. 231 § 1 k.p
art. 231 k.p
art. 87 Konstytucji
art. 87 ust. 1 Konstytucji RP
art. 3 k.p
art. 1 k.c
art. 300 k.p

Cited Case Law

AI generated
I PK 456/02, OSNP 2004 nr 19, poz. 335
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.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text