Jurisprudence and legal science indicate that the employee’s behavior justifying the termination of the employment contract by the employer pursuant to Art. 52 § 1 point 1 of the Labor Code, w should be unlawful, culpable and infringing or threatening the interests of the employer.
In one of the cases examined by the Supreme Court, the employee’s behavior that was the reason for dismissal consisted of leaving the workplace and failing to appear for a meeting with other subordinate employees of the sales department, failing to inform the employer about his absence and the reason for it despite contacting other employees, and providing false information about being on sick leave,
In its decision of July 6, 2022 (II PSK 343/21), the Supreme Court stated that the unlawfulness of the employee’s behavior and the fault of the employee, as well as the consequences of this unlawful and culpable behavior for the employer, constitute separate qualification criteria for a serious breach of the employee’s basic duty, and the occurrence of one of them does not determines the existence of the others. Failure to meet at least one of these conditions precludes the possibility of recognizing the employee’s behavior as a serious breach of the basic employee duty within the meaning of Art. 52 § 1 point 1
In the opinion of the appellate court, despite the undisputed fact that the plaintiff stopped working and went on a trip to Warsaw to visit a specialist doctor, the plaintiff cannot be blamed for breaching basic employee duties, because his behavior was justified by the circumstances and fear of health and the need to visit a doctor. In addition, the defendant has not demonstrated that as a result of the plaintiff’s behavior, she suffered – as an employer – damage or that there was a real and significant threat to her interests. All these circumstances supported the conclusion that the termination of the employment contract between the parties was unlawful, which entitled the claimant to claim damages. As a consequence, this also resulted in the dismissal of the cassation appeal.