II PZP 3/11 AI generated

Supreme Court clarifies that a specific work location in a contract differs from the permanent workplace for travel allowance purposes.

Case Number II PZP 3/11

Court / Authority Sąd Najwyższy

Jurisdiction

Poland (PL)

Decision Date 2011-12-09

Outcome Allowed / Granted

Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court resolved a legal question regarding the definition of 'place of work' versus 'permanent workplace' in construction contracts. The Court determined that a contractually defined area, such as the entire country excluding specific regions, is not identical to the permanent workplace under travel allowance regulations. Consequently, the permanent workplace is the specific site where the employee systematically performs duties for a longer duration.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 29 § 1 pkt 2 k.p.; Art. 775 § 1 k.p.: The place of work defined in a labor contract is not identical to the permanent workplace; the permanent workplace is the specific location among those defined where the employee systematically performs work for a longer period.

Keywords

AI generated

labor contract place of work permanent workplace travel allowance construction workers systematic performance legal interpretation

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Art. 29 § 1 pkt 2 k.p.

Art. 775 § 1 k.p.

art. 29 § 1 pkt 2 k.p

art. 390 § 1 k.p.c

art. 775 § 1 k.p

art. 29 § 1 pkt 1 k.p

art. 375 k.p.c

art. 373 k.p.c

art. 374 k.p.c

art. 50510 § 2 k.p.c

Cited Case Law

AI generated

International truck driver's constant movement within EU is not considered business travel under Polish law.

Supreme Court dismisses appeal against unpaid travel allowances for international truck driver under employment contract.

Supreme Court allows civil code claim for employer reimbursement of non-business trip expenses.

Contract clause allowing employer to change work location without limits is void under Labor Code.

Overtime time off granted by employee request does not entitle to overtime premium or vacation pay rules.

Supreme Court dismisses referral of legal issue due to procedural defect in lower court's decision.

III CZP 64/78

III CZP 93/04

Supreme Court dismisses appeal on notary refusal due to improper public hearing requirement violation.

Supreme Court dismisses legal question as unnecessary since plaintiff does not request judicial valuation under the Civil Code.

Full text