The recent judgment of the Constitutional Court declaring the unconstitutionality of the provisions on lump sums for accommodation on the one hand raised hopes carriers, with other concern, how the courts will treat the claims of drivers in a situation, if the judgment has not yet been published. In one of the cases I have conducted these concerns have now been dispelled by the court of appeal for the benefit of the defendant carrier.
The case before the court of first instance
Problems carrier started normally. In 2015 r. two former employees occurred with the claim for payment of lump sums for accommodation, despite the fact that throughout the period of employment has never reported the claim to receive receivables. The carrier paid the lump sum amount for the trip in advance known height is accepted by employees. The parties agreed, że kwota ta stanowi całość należności kierowców z tytułu podróży służbowych.
Unfortunately, hearing the case in the first instance The District Court in Slubice in the judgment of 21.09.2016 r. ref. akt IV P 74/15 considered, despite the payment of the employees of those duties, the employer should also pay lump sums for accommodation, because it has not been indicated to employees directly, the lump sum for travel also includes the receivables. Interestingly court was not at all interested in the suspension of the proceedings until the case is decided by the Constitutional Court, Recognizing the, that this is only his right, and not an obligation.
The appeal and the judgment of the court of second instance
The judgment of the first instance court was filed appeal, and one of the arguments raised in it was the need to suspend the ruling until the case by the Constitutional Court application Transport Logistics Poland on examining the constitutionality of laws on which the claims of drivers.
The District Court in Gorzow Wielkopolski. judgment of 13.12.2016 r. ref. and you 112/16 the appeal in its entirety and changed the judgment under appeal, dismissed the action in its entirety drivers. In the explanatory memorandum pointed, the legal basis for the plaintiffs' claims proved to be unconstitutional, at the Constitutional Court stated in its judgment of 24.11.2016 r., and thus the driver does not have the right to demand an award of lump sums for accommodation. The fact is published Tribunal's judgment had the court not matter.
Of course this is only one judgment, but it is a good omen for the future – many courts may follow a similar path.
Ciekawy jestem stanu faktycznego w tej konkretnej sprawie.
Ustalono, że pracodawca wypłacał jedno zbiorcze świadczenie obejmujące diety i ryczałty, a świadczenie to zostało w pełni wypłacone?
If yes, to trudno się dziwić takiemu rozstrzygnięciu Sądu Okręgowego. Najwyraźniej błędny był wyrok Sądu I instancji. Sąd I instancji zasądził po prostu to samo świadczenie, które zostało już wcześniej wypłacone (bo było objęte “dietoryczałtem”, którego dopuszczalność potwierdził już wcześniej SN).
@ Dariusz Szczecina
Niestety sąd w ustnych motywach w ogóle nie odniósł się do tej kwestii – powołał się wyłącznie na niekonstytucyjność przepisów o ryczałtach. Być może w uzasadnieniu pisemnym będzie to szerzej opisane – dam wówczas znać.
Ok, thank you.
Bardzo niedługo przyjdzie czas na pierwsze skargi kasacyjne, czy to z jednej czy z drugiej strony sali.
jak wygląda temat ” odszkodowań z tytułu bezprawia legislacyjnego.”
przeglądam wszystko co się da i nigdzie nic na ten temat niema czyżby nikt nie potrafił w tej sprawie zająć stanowiska a zdawało się ze po wyroku jest wszystko takie proste
@ Wojciech
Jeśli okazałoby się, że nie uda się wyegzekwować należności od kierowcy wskutek wznowienia postępowania, można oczywiście domagać się odszkodowania od skarbu państwa. Dodatkowo odszkodowanie przysługuje we wszystkich sytuacjach, w których przewoźnik poniósł szkodę, regardless of the, czy udało się ściągnąć należności od kierowcy.
@ Bogdan
A czego się Pan nie może dowiedzieć?
Hello, jaki jest termin na wznowienie postępowania w przypadku wcześniej wydanego wyroku na niekorzyść pracodawcy ?
Podbijam pytanie przedmówcy o termin na wznowienie postepowania w przypadku wcześniej wydanego wyroku na niekorzyść pracodawcy ??
You raise the question Wieslaw speaker 🙂
@ David and Wieslaw
The deadline is 3 months from the date of publication of the judgment in the Official Gazette. Because it was in the day 29.12.2016 r., term expires on 29.03.2017 r.
Panowie pracodawcy zawsze jestescie biedni? ale tego nie widac- ciagle nowa baza samochodow wille zabudowania itp nie jest to za uczciwa prace tylko wyzysk kierowc
Kombinujecie z umowami jezdzicie na niemcy i unie europejska i za transport placa wam w euro to dlaczego nie macie wyplacac zgodne w przepisach unijne diety????wstyd
Co z prawomocnymi wyrokami gdzie Sąd przyznał kierowcy ryczałty za noclegi wg przepisów Rozporządzenia Rozporządzenia Ministra Pracy i Polityki Społecznej z dnia 29.01.2013 r. w sprawie należności przysługujących pracownikowi zatrudnionemu w państwowej lub samorządowej jednostce sfery budżetowej z tytułu podróży służbowej.Zapis był taki w zawartej umowie o pracę z pracodawcą.Czy pracodawca może wznowić postępowanie o zwrot zapłaconych kwot
@ ana
To zależy co wynika z wyroku sądu. Jeśli sąd zasądził na podstawie rozporządzenia, to są podstawy do wznowienia. Jeśli zasądził w oparciu o umowę o pracę, to pewnie nie.
I wanted to mention about renewals proceedings lump sums paid drivers,Courts would have to be necessarily present if the employer threw the lump-sum for accommodation expenses or not ,decreased if the taxes themselves and this is to check the driver should have the amounts paid and not taken into account resume is not.
From what I know most companies have thus lowered taxes ,drivers are not paid and corporate profits grow,why's driver would now amounts awarded oddawać.Jeżeli had to be so that these amounts should be added to the base and discharged contributions and taxes,then I would sprawiedliwie.Każda fiscal control should pay special attention to this issue and urge employees to receive and how much it would be fair.
@ ana
I have no such knowledge, to carriers regularly threw in the cost of claims, which they are not paid out, and I feel, I have to deal with more carriers than Mrs..
If such cases happen, pathology and of course a matter for the tax office, but if there is no reason to pay a lump sum in the contract of employment or conditions of remuneration, even in this case the employee is not entitled to a lump sum. The fact that almost decide the agreements and regulations, and not in the accounting records do not reflect reality.
Supreme Court judgment is published Beep. akt I PK 300/15 of 21 February 2017 r.warto read,However, gentlemen kierowcy.Firmy leave head .
@ ana
Please look at this judgment http://www.rp.pl/Podatek-dochodowy/303099872-SN-kierowcy-beda-zwracac-wyplacane-im-ryczalty.html#ap-1 So rather I not count on failure carriers.
Supreme Court judgment I PK 300/15 The Supreme Court said in practice, that despite the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal K 11/15, nothing changes in terms of the possibility to claim lump sums per night. I draw attention to the detailed explanation of the key issues in this respect in particular, as to, that the "silence" in the rules regarding the payment of lump sums per night (the question is only about the same diets) Regulation applies ministerialnego.Bardzo legibly and clearly written on the grounds p.10 ,that the provisions repealed judgment do not apply before the entry into force of the judgment, etc. .
@ ana
First, judgment is isolated. Secondly certainly he did not say, that nothing has changed, because clearly emphasized, that priority is given to determine the parties. So if the parties have agreed not paying lump sums, This refund will not be. Thirdly if such a line were to keep, This is a simple way to another Tribunal's judgment, since the Supreme Constitutional Court's judgment either ignores or does not understand it. Below are some excerpts from the judgment, which the Supreme Court itself apparently not assimilated:
“In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, prejudging by the legislature, że art. 775 § 3-5 kp and based on Article. 775 § 2 kp implementing rules to be applied to each made by the driver of the carriage transport, contrary to the rationale of these rules and indicates the inadequacy of the measure in relation to the regulated which.
These findings lead to the conclusion, that is the right of the applicant, and other parties, that the legislator, referring in Article. 21and ucpk to the general rules provided for in the Labor Code - ie. art. 775 § 3-5 kp and then to the contested provisions of Regulations - do not take into account the specific nature of the profession of driver in international transport.”
“Bearing in mind the above-mentioned regulations, Trybunał uznał, that the structure adopted in the normative regulations challenged in point 1 i 2 petitum application, It led to the unpredictability of the legal consequences of actions taken on the basis of these provisions by the transport industry employers. Trybunał uznał, that the legislature, left laxness authorities applying the law in determining the scope to be given powers drivers employed in international transport and related obligations of employers. As already indicated, a manifestation of the principle of specificity of legal provisions to formulate rules in a logical and precise and linguistically correct, so that the intention of the legislature as to the circle of persons and circumstances of the use of the legal norms did not raise doubts in the addressees. These requirements were violated when establishing the challenged provisions. They became not only incomprehensible to their addressees, but also provoked strikingly different interpretations of the highest judicial authorities. The mere fact of the creation of overly broad framework for law enforcement organs, which must replace the legislature in terms of the issues covered in dookreślania imprecisely, evidence of breach of the principle of specificity of law.”
“Trybunał uznał, doubt that the level of interpretation in the case of the examined regulations is a qualified, and the difficulty in removing, especially from the point of view of regulation of the addressees, They turn out to be grossly excessive, which can not be justified by the complexity of matter normowanej. The Court also held, that the effects of these differences are essential for the legally protected interests of the recipients, They were significantly intensity (a significant increase in labor costs not anticipated before the release of the resolution by the Supreme Court 2014 r. by debiting the transportation industry employers claims involving drivers a few years back, reaching ca.. 50 k. PLN per person) and stem from uncertainty as to how to interpret the challenged provisions by the courts.
The Court accordingly held, że art. 21ucpk and in conjunction with Article. 775 § 2, 3 i 5 Labor Code in connection with § 16 paragraph. 1, 2 i 4 rozporządzenia z 2013 r. infringes the principle of appropriate legislation, which is a component of the principle of trust units of the state and its laws, derived from the art. 2 The Constitution.”
From that judgment clearly two issues:
– impose on employers the obligation to pay a lump sum for drivers on the principles of accommodation provided for all employees is an inadequate solution and thus unconstitutional
– the existence of legislation, from which there are clear responsibilities for citizens, can not violate their rights, because they are not able read the obligations imposed on them
And it is therefore in the light of this judgment obvious, that imposing on employers the obligation to pay a lump sum for accommodation directly to the labor code is simply unconstitutional, because the Court considered this to be an inadequate and incorrect entry of the legal system. If the Supreme Court does not accept this – although other judgments, however, seems to understand – The Court will issue a verdict just another, this time directly determines the unconstitutionality of the Labor Code in this respect, and not only the law on working time of drivers.
Sir Paul ,I do not think you fully understand my content,Now what is the judgment of the Tribunal is in part known,Now is Milog etc.. I was interested or if there are provisions in the contract of employment ,delegations that are to be paid by the Act and the employer did not pay a lump sum or have the right to recover the money.
Of course, final judgment, lump sums planted .
awarded
@ Peter
Once again I remind, I found this place on a substantive discussion, not personal trips. Comments, Like a number of previous I delete.
@ ana
Of course, I know the content of the judgment and I know what the outcome, but please compare himself to the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is clearly written,, that regulation is unacceptable, which grants flat-rate drivers on the same basis as for other employees. Supreme Court in its judgment completely ignored, hence my guess, that if she had to forge such a line, This judgment will be made another CT, which again deems it unlawful.
Substantially as previously Please provide examples of these Supreme Court judgments which the Lord says.
@ Peter
The one I mentioned earlier. Another is II PK 227/15 even before the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal. SN confirmed there, provides that if the driver in the cab adapted to this, You can pay the lower amount due to business travel than those indicated in Regulation.
Mr. patrons, where in the judgment I read about the Lord's ability to pay a lower amount ? After all, it was a complaint and the reasons for judgment set aside in their favor in the form of two euros….
Apart from the fact that it can actually be SN changes his mind known to me by four judgments of this year 🙂 But only in terms of the amount of the minimum….
PS
Judgment is at most evidence enough that by employers ,, announce,, worse that we pay what was common practice. Well, because if the rules established in the course of the case is difficult to terminate earlier 🙂
@ Peter
This follows even from this passage, which indicates the primacy of internal acts: “A reflection of this rule on the basis of regulations on business trip 5 it is Article. 77 § 3 k.p. It establishes a normative basis for the settlement of the issues in the collective agreement or the regulations of remuneration, or in the employment contract, if the employer is not covered by the collective or is not required to determine the work regulations.”
This was confirmed by the judgment 9 mark 2017 r. and the previous November 2016 r.
I will remain in his own mind though as I say it is possible that the Supreme Court changed the sentence, but from what the Lord gives it is not clear yet