In its decision of September 18, 2019 (file reference number I PK 142/18), the Supreme Court ruled that the labor court may replace a business to business contract with a full-time job.
The case concerned a woman who concluded a contract with a company managing a retail chain, under which she was to run a shop. The woman provided services as a self-employed entrepreneur. The contract signed by the parties specified not only the rules of running a business, but also the time and place of work and a fixed monthly remuneration for the claimant. It did not bear any economic risk, including financial, technical and personal related to the business – this risk was assumed by the defendant company. In addition, the store manager did not make any outlays or investments, and hired employees with the consent and control of the company. Moreover, the claimant herself had a fixed monthly salary. After some time, the woman asked the court to establish the employment relationship.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in the current market conditions it is permissible for a retail chain to conclude civil law contracts with another entrepreneur to run a store. However, it is from the manner in which the contract is performed that its nature should be inferred. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether we are dealing with a business relationship on the basis of the manner of performing the contract.
The Supreme Court ruled that the manager of a sportswear store may be considered an employee, although she was formally engaged in business activity, if it turned out that all decisions had to be consulted with the regional director. This means that the entrepreneur will have to pay extra ZUS contributions for the employee with whom he fictitiously changed the job into business activity.
KS