Search

The subject of the article is the termination date of an academic teacher’s employment contract. The Law on Higher Education and Science binds this date to the end of the semester. While the regulation provided for in the pragmatics allows for a precise determination of the end of the summer semester (30 September), it does not provide grounds for an unambiguous determination of the end of the winter semester. This is confirmed by the differing views of the doctrine on the matter and the practice, as well as the first statements of the judicature. The interpretative dispute boils down to whether the end of the winter semester is determined at the university level or has been uniformly defined in the Law on Higher Education and Science. In view of the significant discrepancies in interpretation and the objections raised to the various positions taken in this dispute, it seems justified to call for a clearer regulation of when the end of the winter semester falls, so that the termination date of an academic teacher’s employment contract does not raise any doubts.

The paper attempts to answer the question of whether periods of daily and weekly rest provided for in Art. 132 and 133 of the Labour Code Act of 26 June 1974 are to be accounted for with reference to the employment relationship, employer, or employee. Determinations in this respect were made by analysing various situations occurring in practice—employment of an employee with one employer on the basis of one employment relationship, simultaneous employment of an employee in several employment relationships with that employer, and parallel employment of an employee by more than one employer. This takes into account the need to ensure that the employee is afforded rest periods within strictly defined legal limits, as well as the nature of the right to daily and weekly rest and the purposes of this right. ASJC: 3308, JEL: K31

Admissibility of disclosing to trade unions information on the amount of an employee’s remuneration in the common employment model (polemical article) In doctrine and jurisprudence, the prevailing view is that employers are not obliged to disclose to trade unions, at their request and within the framework of trade union monitoring of compliance with the law, information on employee wages. According to the 1993 resolution of the panel of seven judges of the Supreme Court, an employer may disclose such information, but only with the employee’s consent. Otherwise, the personal right of the person performing the work may be infringed. Such an opinion is not convincing. It stands in clear opposition to the law in force. It also leads to depriving the trade union organisation of the right to carry out systemic control of the employer’s compliance with the principle of equal remuneration for equal work or work of equal value (Art. 18(3c) of the Labour Code). ASJC: 3308, JEL: K31