Prior to digitalisation of medical certificates, employees received sick notes from their doctor in paper form, which they then had to deliver to their employer. The employer had no other way to verify whether the employee’s absence was in fact connected with incapacity to work.

Now, after issuing a certificate, the doctor enters it in the PUE ZUS system, where it is visible on the profile of the employer (or other remitter of health insurance contributions) no later than the day after issuance. Therefore, in principle, employees are no longer responsible for providing sick notes themselves to their employer. But it is one thing to provide a document justifying absence from work, and another thing to inform the employer of the employee’s absence.

Pursuant to the Regulation of the Minister of Labour and Social Policy of 15 May 1996 on the method of justifying an absence from work and granting leave to employees, an employee is obliged to notify the employer of the reason for an absence from work, and the expected duration of the absence, if the reason for the absence is known or foreseeable in advance. If there are reasons preventing the employee from reporting to work (e.g. illness), the employee is obliged to notify the employer immediately of the reason for the absence and the expected duration, but no later than the second day of absence from work. If internal company rules (e.g. workplace regulations) do not specify the manner of notifying the employer of the reason for absence from work, the employee should notify the employer personally or through another person, by phone or other means of communication, or by post, in which case the notice is deemed to be given as of the date of the postmark.

It is apparent that these rules, which have not changed since 1996, are not entirely suited to the contemporary reality (especially with regard to notifying the employer of absence by “snail mail”). At the same time, under current law, there are still no provisions exempting the employee from this obligation, even in a situation where the employer may learn about the absence in another way, e.g. from the PUE ZUS system. Positions directly confirming that the digitalisation of sick notes in no way affects the employee’s obligations in this regard can be found for example on the website of the National Labour Inspectorate and the government portal for business operators business.gov.pl.

While this position may seem overly stringent, it is justified. First, although electronic certificates are most often visible on the employer’s profile immediately, according to the regulations they may not show up until the day after they are issued. Moreover, as a rule, a sick note may cover a period of up to three days prior to the medical examination, if the results show that the insured was undoubtedly incapable of work during that period (this restriction does not apply to certificates issued by a psychiatrist who establishes or suspects a mental disorder limiting the employee’s capacity to assess his or her own conduct). Therefore, it is easy to imagine a situation where the employer will not find out for several days about the reason for the employee’s absence, or the duration of the absence, unless the employee informs the employer directly.

There is no doubt that failure to comply with this obligation may constitute grounds for punishing the employee with an official admonishment or reprimand. In certain situations, an employee’s failure may even justify termination of the employment contract with advance notice, or in exceptional cases, even with immediate effect.

Nonetheless, the employee’s conduct must be evaluated in each case in light of the overall circumstances. If the delay in notifying the employer of the absence was due to justified special circumstances (the provisions expressly indicate that such circumstances would include a serious illness, where the employee has no other household members or they are absent, or other fortuitous event), failure to provide notification will not be grounds for termination of the employment contract without advance notice due to the employee’s fault. The employee’s behaviour should also be viewed less harshly when the employer has learned of the employee’s absence from the PUE ZUS portal (in which situation there is usually no threat to the employer’s interests).

But undoubtedly it would be best to avoid these consequences altogether. Therefore, just in case, it is worth regularly reminding employees (e.g. by e-mail) about the applicable rules for justifying absences, and reminding them that issuance of an electronic sick note is no exception.

In short, the mere appearance of an electronic sick note on the employer’s profile is not equivalent to satisfaction of the employee’s obligation to inform the employer of the absence. The employee is still obliged to immediately inform the employer of his or her absence from work, regardless of the cause or nature of the absence. So far, the digitalisation of medical certificates has changed nothing in this regard.

Piotr Podsiadły, Oliwia Pecht