Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
II PK 265/04 AI generated

Travel time and stay at destination are not employer's discretion but part of working hours unless exceeding rest limits.

Case Number II PK 265/04
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court partially allowed the employee's appeal regarding overtime pay for business travel. The court found that travel time and stay at the destination constitute working hours under normal schedules, not employer discretion, unless they exceed guaranteed rest limits. Consequently, the lower court's dismissal of the claim for travel time was overturned, while the claim for rest time violations was remanded for further review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 128 § 1 k.p.; Art. 133 § 2 k.p.; Rozporządzenie Ministra Pracy i Polityki Socjalnej z dnia 15 maja 1996 r.: Travel time and stay at the destination of a business trip are not considered time at the employer's disposal but fall within normal working hours, except where they encroach upon the guaranteed daily rest period.

Keywords

AI generated
business travel time working hours definition overtime compensation daily rest period employee remuneration labor law dispute travel duration limits

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 128 § 1 k.p.
Art. 133 § 2 k.p.
§ 1 in conjunction with § 3 pkt 5 of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy Regulation of 15 May 1996
Art. 393 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 393 § 15 k.p.c.
Art. 108 k.p.c.
art. 128 § 1 k.p
art. 128 k.p
art. 134 k.p
art. 391 § 1 k.p.c

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