A few words about the employee's disciplinary responsibility
Under the employment relationship, an employee bears disciplinary, material, and administrative responsibilities. In today's article, we will explore the topic of disciplinary liability, including its purpose, the grounds for its application, and the types of disciplinary penalties provided for in the Labor Code.
The purpose of order responsibility
Disciplinary liability serves to maintain order and organizational principles in the workplace. Its application does not necessarily require harm to the employer or the threat of harm.
Moreover, any employer may impose disciplinary penalties regardless of the number of employees, type of ownership, scope, or type of business. Similarly, disciplinary liability applies to all employees, regardless of their position or the type of duties they perform.
Conditions of liability for breach of order – guilt and unlawfulness of action or conduct
To punish an employee, an employer must consider whether the employee was at fault and the unlawfulness of the act or omission. How should fault be understood in such a situation? It is interpreted based on the employee's conduct. Fault is a condition for imposing disciplinary liability on the employee, therefore, the inability to prove fault means there is no basis for imposing a penalty.
Grounds excluding employee guilt include: lack of sanity, incompetence, error, and a state of necessity. Incompetence is a rather exceptional situation, involving an employee's inability to discern their own actions, which consequently prevents them from exercising discretion. An employee's incompetence stems from a lack of sufficient skills to perform their job, which essentially makes it impossible to accuse them of a lack of conscientiousness in their approach to work. Another ground, employee error, is interpreted quite broadly and constitutes an error of fact or an error in the performance of an act. A state of necessity, on the other hand, involves the employee protecting a greater good at the expense of a lesser good.
The second condition determining the necessity or possibility of imposing a disciplinary penalty on an employee is the unlawfulness of the act or omission. What does this unlawfulness consist of? It refers to the employee's conduct or behavior, which involves failure to perform or improperly perform their duties related to adhering to established work order and regulations, as well as compliance with occupational health and safety regulations and disciplinary regulations. The unlawfulness of an act may be a single act or a continuous act.
It should be emphasized that if an employee violates multiple employee duties through a single act of conduct that would justify disciplinary liability, they are only liable for a single offense. The violation that is most harmful is responsible for that offense, and for which the employee may be subject to a more severe penalty.
Types of disciplinary penalties
Disciplinary penalties under the Labor Code are divided into non-financial penalties, which include warnings and reprimands, and financial penalties, which are monetary fines. It should be emphasized that the list of disciplinary penalties is exhaustive. Employers may not impose penalties other than those listed in the Labor Code.
A warning may be issued for an employee's failure to adhere to established work organization and order, occupational health and safety regulations, fire safety regulations, or the established procedure for confirming arrival and presence at work, as well as for justifying absences. Established work order is understood as all organizational rules that ensure order in a given workplace.
A reprimand is perceived as a more severe penalty than a warning, even though the grounds for both penalties are the same. This stems from the common understanding of the term "reprehensible," meaning reprehensible and socially unacceptable. It should be noted that the choice of sanction falls within the employer's discretionary powers.
One of the most severe penalties is a fine – because, in addition to financial hardship, this penalty also negatively impacts the employee's performance. Employers are authorized to impose fines for employees who fail to comply with occupational health and safety or fire regulations, leave work without justification, report to work intoxicated, or consume alcohol while working. It's clear that this penalty is applied only for the most serious offenses.
Can a disciplinary penalty be a basis for terminating an employment contract?
The event that gave rise to a disciplinary penalty may also constitute grounds for terminating an employment contract. The Supreme Court analyzed the issue of identifying these grounds. It clearly stated that there is no obstacle to terminating an employment contract with or without notice based on the same event for which a disciplinary penalty was imposed on the employee, when the gravity of the offense is so significant that the circumstances and consequences (even potential) of its commission justify the employer's belief that the employee should not be employed any longer (Supreme Court Resolution of April 25, 2019, I PK 125/18, Legalis No. 1898186). It follows from the above that if an employee fails to adhere to the employer's organizational governance, and despite the imposition of a disciplinary penalty, the employer still fails to comply with organizational rules, the employer is entitled to terminate the employment contract, specifying the reason(s) justifying the termination. The condition for concluding that the same event constitutes both a disciplinary penalty and justification for termination of the employment contract is the significant gravity of the employee's misconduct. Interestingly, although the employer would indicate several circumstances in the termination notice that are identical to those constituting the basis for imposing a disciplinary penalty (and some of them would prove unfounded), for the termination of the employment contract to be effective, it is necessary to indicate at least one reason justifying termination.
Can the use of disciplinary penalties constitute mobbing?
Referring to the previous article on the circumstances constituting mobbing, it should be noted that repeated disciplinary penalties directed at an employee, even if justified, may constitute mobbing. In addition to imposing a disciplinary penalty, it is necessary to demonstrate that the imposition of disciplinary penalties was intended to ridicule or humiliate the employee and was persistent and repetitive (Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Białystok, III Labor and Social Security Division, of 30 June 2015, III APa 6/15, Legalis no. 1327124).
Summary
It is clear that employees' liability for breach of contract is quite clearly regulated in the provisions of the Labor Code. The fact that there is a closed catalog of disciplinary penalties and the circumstances that constitute the basis for imposing a penalty on an employee creates certainty in labor relations.
Disciplinary liability is one form of employee liability. In subsequent articles, we will explore the issues of financial and disciplinary liability. In what situations can an employer impose a penalty for financial liability? When is a penalty imposed on an employee for disciplinary offenses?
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal status as of January 12, 2024
author/editor of the series:
