In court practice, it often happens that employees whose employment has been terminated disagree with the employer's decision. In response to the termination, they file a lawsuit with the labor court, arguing, among other things, that the reason for the termination was vague, untrue, or completely unjustified.
Employee claims after termination of contract
Employees most often file a claim for compensation. However, many also seek reinstatement, especially in the case of termination of an indefinite-term contract.
In previous articles, we highlighted a relatively new provision that allows an employee to file a motion to secure a claim by reinstating him or her to work for the duration of legal proceedings.
Possibility of dismissing a claim for reinstatement
It is worth noting the interesting judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 March 2025, file reference: III PSKP 44/24, in which it was indicated that: "Demands for reinstatement may, in specific factual situations, be contrary to the socio-economic purpose of such special legal protection. The overall factual circumstances, and in particular the assessment of the reasons for terminating the contract and the lack of connection with the trade union function performed, may therefore result in the admissibility of dismissing the claim for reinstatement on the basis of Article 8 of the Labor Code in conjunction with Article 477¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure and awarding compensation in its place."
In connection with this ruling, but also with the already established case law of common courts, it should be noted that in court practice, quite often – despite the merits of the claim – the court decides not to reinstate the employee to work, awarding compensation instead.
Legal basis for reinstatement
Pursuant to Article 45 § 1 of the Labor Code, the court may rule that the termination notice is invalid, and if the contract has already been terminated, the court may order the employee's reinstatement under the previous terms or compensation. Therefore, after analyzing the circumstances of the case, reinstatement is only possible based on a final court ruling concluding the proceedings.
Possibility of securing a claim
Pursuant to Article 477² § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court may, at the employee's request, also oblige the employer to continue employing that person until the final conclusion of the proceedings.
This means that the court will obligate the employer to continue employing the employee even before the final, legally binding conclusion of the case. Even if the subsequent judgment proves unfavorable to the employee, the employee loses employment only on the date the judgment becomes final.
When can a court refuse reinstatement?
In practice, there are situations where, despite meeting the formal requirements, the court finds that, due to the socio-economic purpose of the protective law, reinstatement is not justified. However, such cases are exceptional, and the court's decision should always be based on an analysis of all the circumstances of the case.
The court may refuse reinstatement, among other things, when the reason for termination resulted from a real and serious conflict, further cooperation between the parties would be extremely difficult, there has been a permanent loss of trust between the parties to the employment relationship, or the claim for reinstatement is contrary to the principles of social coexistence (Article 8 of the Labor Code).
In such cases, the court, even though it considers the termination to be unjustified or defective, may, pursuant to the provisions of the Labour Code and Civil Procedure, dismiss the request for reinstatement and award compensation instead.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of September 12, 2025.
Author / Editor of the series:
