One of the provisions of the preliminary provisions of the Labor Code is Art. 8, which is equivalent to Art. 5 k.c. It contains two equivalent and separate, though interrelated, general clauses – the socio-economic purpose of law and the principles of social coexistence. By introducing indefinite phrases into the text of a legal act, the legislator allows for interpretation taking into account extra-legal norms – moral, customary and customary. The application of the construction of principles of social coexistence may only serve „as a means of control and correction of the exercise of a subjective right.” (K. Rączka [in:] M. Gersdorf, M. Raczkowski, K. Rączka, Labor Code. Commentary, 3rd edition, Warsaw 2014, art. 8.). „This regulation does not apply to situations where a specific entity violates the provisions of substantive law. The construction includes cases in which the behavior of a specific entity formally meets all the requirements provided for by law, while for other – non-legal – reasons (e.g. social or moral) this behavior does not deserve legal protection.” (Decision of the Supreme Court of November 24, 2021, III PSK 115/21, LEX No. 3333815.). As emphasized in the jurisprudence – adjudication on the basis of art. 8 k.p. always leads to a weakening of the principle of legal certainty, which is why this instrument should be used exceptionally and only in an inseparable connection with all the circumstances of a particular case. This is justified by the fact that „the norm of art. 8 k.p. means depriving a given entity of the possibility to exercise the right that it is entitled to in the light of the provisions of the law in question.” (Judgment of the Supreme Court of February 8, 2018, I PK 350/16, LEX No. 2483350.).
Referring to the socio-economic purpose of the law, it should be noted that in this part the provision is rarely used. „The clause of the socio-economic purpose of law cannot be understood in the current system of the Republic of Poland as a rule according to which each entitlement (subjective right of an employer or employee) must always serve both a social and economic purpose. This would mean, for example, that an employee could not exercise his or her right to annual leave only in his/her personal interest (…).” (G. Goździewicz, T. Zieliński [in:] Labor Code. Commentary, ed. VII, ed. L. Florek, Warsaw 2017, art. 8.). However, there is no basis to claim that it is now a completely dead provision. The courts refer to the discussed clause most often when ruling on an alternative possibility of reinstating an employee to work or when considering the issue of trade union protection. In the judgment of May 13, 2021, the Supreme Court stated that „the intentional coverage of an employee with trade union protection by the management board of a trade union organization, undertaken solely to protect against dismissal and having nothing to do with the idea of trade union protection of the durability of the employment relationship, is in contradiction with socio-economic purpose of this right.” (Judgement of the Supreme Court of May 13, 2021, III PSKP 17/21, OSNP 2022, No. 4, item 33).
The issue of possible abuse of the law is undoubtedly easiest to explain with an example. Suppose that X is a construction worker and Y is the employer who employs him. X, in July 2015, suffered a serious accident at work while performing it. Y was away from the workplace at that time, having learned about the accident, he ordered the other employees to wait for him (even though he was in a town 50 minutes away from the place of the accident) and only he himself transported X to the hospital in a company van. X sued Y for the payment of the pension, the action was brought in January 2019. The claimant’s claim for the payment of the pension has expired. The plaintiff knew about the damage and the person responsible for it already on the day of the accident. Thus, in July 2015, the three-year limitation period for claiming a disability pension began to run. The defendant raised the objection of limitation, however, we can unquestionably state that this objection was, however, contrary to the principles of social coexistence. The defendant’s conduct after the accident was inappropriate – as the employer, he grossly violated the duty to care for their life and health. It is also significant that the victim suffered significant damage to health.
english
