WORKS COUNCIL RIGHTS VIOLATION IN THE CASE OF PLANNED TAKEOVER OF AN EMPLOYING ESTABLISHMENT
Journal Title: Annuals of the Administration and Law - Year 2015, Vol 1, Issue 0
Abstract
_is article has analyzed several situations in which the employer is at risk of criminal liability when the employer plans a takeover of an employing establishment, or its part by another employer, and it does not ful#ll the duty, arising from an act of April 7, 2006 to inform the employees and to conduct consulting with them (hereina`er referred to as the Act). _e Act outlines the issues which are to constitute the object of works council information and consultation, and which are put forward by the employer. _e duty to inform works council enacted in article 13, section 1 of the Act does not release the employer from the obligation to inform other entities pertaining to the takeover. In the case of not informing and/or not conducting consultation with works council on the planned transfer and its eqects on employees’ situation, the employer (or the person acting on the employer’s behalf) may be held criminally liable of article 19, section 1, item 4 of the Act. According to the Act, its regulations shall be applicable to employers who employ at least 50 employees. In the case of a takeover of an employing establishment, or its part, the sta|ng level at employers participating in the transfer may decrease or increase. _e Act does not specify directly how the takeover of en employing establishment, or its part shall inHuence the functioning of the already existing works council, and how to adapt its activities to the new conditions. If the employer undertakes actions to make it impossible to set up works council despite the existing premises to do so, or decides not to organize the election for the works council in de#ance of the employer’s duty, or shall hinder such an election, the employer bears responsibility, arising from article 19, section1, item 1 and/or item 3 of the Act. _e author concludes that determining what constitutes distinguishing features of an oqence typi#ed in article 19, section 1 of the Act gives rise to di|culties due to their generality and sometimes also convergence.<br/><br/>
Authors and Affiliations
Ewelina Kumor-Jezierska
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP400137
- DOI -
- Views 88
- Downloads 0
TRANSFORMATION OF COOPERATIVE WORK INTO LIMITED COMPANY- CHOSEN TAX EFFECTS
The primary function of cooperative work established through the use of project professional potential members. Solidarity action and participating in the management of the cooperative may lead members to a decision on i...
Glosa do wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Gliwicach z dnia 4 sierpnia 2011 r., sygn. akt II SA/GL 254/11
.<br/><br/>
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
The paper concerns dfferences in approach to collective bargaining in the case-laws of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The author points to the inspiration of ECCHR by achievements o...
Ochrona prawa własności, czyli roszczenia przysługujące właścicielowi na podstawie przepisów kodeksu cywilnego
Własność to filar, na którym opiera się konstrukcja systemu prawa cywilnego i z tego powodu niezmiernie istotne jest właściwe ukształtowanie ochrony tego prawa. Chociaż ochronę własności przewidują przepisy Konstytucji,...
THE MOST RECENT CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE AREA OF PREGNANCY, MATERNITY, PATERNITY AND ASSISTANTS BENEFITS TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN
qe Author describes and examines amendments introduced in 2015 into the Polish Labour in protection of pregnancy, maternity and parental leaves and other rights arising in connection with paternity, assistance to dependa...