In its judgment of 26 February 2025 (ref. I PSK 126/24), the Supreme Court once again confirmed the position that the labour court has no competence to assess the rationality of the employer's decisions regarding organisational changes, such as the elimination of a job position or a reduction in employment.
What was the case about?
The case concerned the termination of an employee's employment contract for an indefinite period. The employer cited the elimination of the position due to structural changes within the company as the reason. The employee contested the termination, arguing that the employer's decision was economically unjustified and the reorganization was merely a sham.
The position of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the employee's cassation appeal, emphasizing that: "The issue of whether the employer needs to make organizational changes, including eliminating a job position, falls within the employer's management autonomy and is not subject to review by the labor court." The Supreme Court also recalled that the labor court is not a body appointed to examine the rationality of economic or organizational decisions made by the employer. Judicial review only concerns whether: the reason for the termination was real and specific, was not fictitious or discriminatory, and did not violate the provisions of special employment protection.
The meaning of the judgment
The ruling confirms that an employer's autonomy in managing a company—including decisions about job cuts—is subject to limited judicial review. The labor court does not assess whether the reorganization was "just" or "profitable," but only whether the reason for the termination was specific, genuine, and lawful.
For employers, this means strengthening their position in personnel decisions, provided they are conducted in a formally correct manner. For employees, it confirms that mere disagreement with the employer's decision regarding organizational changes is not grounds for effectively challenging a termination.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of August 28, 2025.
Author / Editor of the series:
