II PK 13/06
AI generated
Court held that specific, verifiable bonus conditions make it a bonus, not a discretionary reward.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court quashed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for a new ruling on costs. The lower courts incorrectly characterized a salary supplement as a discretionary reward based on the employer's free will. The Supreme Court clarified that when a regulation sets concrete and verifiable criteria for payment, the supplement is legally a bonus, not a reward subject to arbitrary employer discretion.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 24113 § 2 k.p. in conjunction with Art. 772 § 3, 5 and Art. 42 k.p.; If a remuneration regulation establishes specific and verifiable conditions for a payment, the benefit constitutes a bonus rather than a discretionary reward, thereby negating the employer's unfettered right to withhold it.
Keywords
AI generated
bonus versus reward
discretionary remuneration
verifiable conditions
labor regulation interpretation
employer discretion limits
remuneration regulation
casation grounds
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 24113 § 2 k.p.
Art. 772 § 3 k.p.
Art. 772 § 5 k.p.
Art. 42 k.p.
Art. 39815 § 1 k.p.c.
Art. 108 § 2 k.p.c.
art. 86 k.p
art. 42 k.p
art. 31 k.p
art. 108 § 2 k.p.c