Under the Labour Code (Art. 100 § 2(6)), an employee has a duty to abide by the principles of community life, but what does this entail?
The “principles of community life” should be understood as customs, morals, and ethics applicable in a certain community at a certain time. The notion of “principles of community life” was characterised by the Supreme Court in a judgment of 5 March 2007, in which it stated that the issue of principles of community life concerns generally acknowledged principles, but equally particular rules in effect at the employer in question. Meanwhile, these rules must be formulated in an objective way, and not be based on the will of the employer, i.e. be imposed by the employer.
The Supreme Court stressed that objectively formulated ethical principles can be catalogued in a written code of ethics. This code of ethics can be communicted to employees, and it can even be stipulated that non-compliance will be considered a breach of employee duties under Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code. At the same time, the Supreme Court pointed out that because principles of community life described in Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code have to be objectively existing rules, and an employer cannot require other rules to be followed (which the employer considers to exist subjectively), a dispute between an employer and an employee regarding this issue, where there is a difference in evaluations, and in which an employee refuses to abide by the stipulated rules, is not necessarily a breach of employee duties (insubordination). The court also stressed that an evaluation can only be formed in this regard when an employer finds an employee’s conduct to be a breach of Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code, and specific labour law sanctions are applied.
An employee is required to abide by the principles of community life with respect to the employer and to co-workers, as well as third parties, such as customers or persons working for the employer’s service providers.
The case law developed lists a range of types of conduct that breach the principles of community life. The Supreme Court has stated that an employee is in breach of the principles of community life when they use physical force against a fellow employee, and when they groundlessly allege that a member of the workforce has committed an offence (Supreme Court judgment of 12 January 2005).
The principles of community life require employees to use the apropriate forms of address. The manner in which they communicate must be in line with fundamental rules on addressing other people with respect and on respecting the dignity of others. Abusive behaviour towards other employees on the part of an employee in a supervisory position can be classed as a severe breach of basic employee duties, according to a Supreme Court judgment of 29 June 2005.
A common example of breach of the principles of community life is lying by an employee. The making of false statements by an employee regarding facts universally known to the workforce in proceedings conducted in an employment establishment following an accident is a breach of an employee’s duty to respect the principles of community life in the employment establishment (Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code) and of an employee’s duty to protect the employer’s interests (Art. 100 § 2(4) of the Labour Code). This is grounds for serving notice of termination of their employment contract (Supreme Court judgment of 12 January 1998).
Conduct prohibited under other labour law provisions may also be considered a breach of the principles of community life, in particular abuse, sexual abuse, other forms of discrimination, and bullying.
It is less clear whether an employee has a duty to respect the principles of community life only when present in the employment establishment, or whether this applies equally outside of the workplace and outside of working hours. The duty of ethical behaviour cannot be limited to strictly defined timeframes or space. This would mean that the requirements regarding conduct according to principles of community life were “relative”, which in effect would defeat the purpose of Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code, which lays down the proper nature of the relationship between persons performing work. This relationship cannot be forged if ethics and principles of moral conduct are only partially respected. This was the standpoint adopted in a Supreme Court judgment of 9 July 2008, in which it argued that Art. 100 § 2(6) of the Labour Code should be understood to mean that an employee has the duty provided for in this article to respect the principles of community life not only when performing work and in the workplace, but also at other times and in other places, when the employee’s conduct falls within the sphere of the employment relationship or is closely linked to that sphere (as in the case of trade union activity at an employer) and relates to co-workers.
The Supreme Court rightly states that in a case in which an employee is alleged to have breached the principles of community life in an employment establishment as a result of conduct that gives rise to tension, conflict and undermines a peaceful atmosphere, the most important issue is whether the conduct attributed to the employee took place, and the consequences. The intentions of the employee are of little importance (Supreme Court judgment of 21 February 1997).
Breach of the principles of community life can be grounds for termination of the employment contract with or without notice (Supreme Court judgment of 5 March 2007).
Marcin Wujczyk
