Kontrola osobista pracowników – wczorajsze orzeczenie w dzisiejszej rzeczywistości (uwagi w świetle wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 13 kwietnia 1972 roku)

Acta Iuris Stetinensis. 2015;9

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: Acta Iuris Stetinensis

ISSN: 2083-4373 (Print); 2545-3181 (Online)

Publisher: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego

Society/Institution: Wydział Prawa i Administracji Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego

LCC Subject Category: Law | Political science: Political institutions and public administration (General)

Country of publisher: Poland

Language of fulltext: Polish, English

Full-text formats available: PDF

 

AUTHORS

Marcin Smolski (Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu)

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Double blind peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 20 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

In this article the author examines the judgment of the Supreme Court of 13.04.1972, which also today is a source of guidance personal inspection staff. As a condition of the legality of its conduct, the Supreme Court pointed out, inter alia, that the execution should take place in consultation with the representative of the crew. The author pays attention to emerging contemporary views of interpreting used in the above. judgment the phrase “in consultation” as a process of consultation only. Furthermore, in the light of the above-mentioned author. judgment considering the possibility of carrying out the employee’s personal control in the absence of regulation of this issue in the Act. Analyzing the phrase “in consultation” the author draws attention to the need to analyze the legal status which the Supreme Court relied on issuing the ruling. It notes that the Supreme Court pointed out the rules of procedure as appropriate for the subject matter in-house procedure. Emphasizes that another mode of its adoption in force at the time of issuance of the above judgments, and other contemporary spaces, which is important for understanding the differences in meaning of the concept “in concert”. The author analyzes the state of the law at the time of the judgment in question, cited the comments of the doctrine of labor law in this period, the then explains the meaning of “in concert”, indicates the mode of the conclusion of the working rules and entities involved in this process. The author also points out that despite the absence of statutory regulations control employees under certain conditions, drawn from the analyzed sentence allowable (including the obligation to inform employees about acceptable forms of employer control). Another necessary condition to carry it out is the need to exercise restraint and respect for the dignity of persons undergoing operations control. The author concludes that by placing the control of employees working in the rules of used by the Supreme Court of the phrase “in consultation” could not be understood in the purely consultation, as indeed was the nature of a firm and binding voice belonged to the wider workers’ representation. Emphasizes that the contemporary use of the term “in agreement” can be understood as consultation with the assumption that the procedure checks will be placed precisely in the rules of work and in the workplace, there are trade unions which is agreed rules. Stresses that it is appropriate to develop guiding principles of inspection staff, so that the worker had secured at least minimum standards of legal protection, so that there is no background to this abuse. The author does share the postulate of the exhaustive calculation by the legislature cases, allowing the possibility of inspection. In his opinion the emphasis should be placed on the development of consciousness (including legal) relations employee - employer, in which both parties are aware of their entitlements and obligations, including the extent of the liability (eg. from criminal or civil liability) for exceeding.  Translated by Brygida Kulesza