Temporary work; the jurisdiction ratione loci of a labour court P 121/15
‘What follows from the principle expressed in Article 24 of the Constitution is the state’s obligation to create the guarantees of the protection of workers, and one of the guarantees is that the legislator should provide for the right to consider a case concerning the claims of workers, including temporary workers, by a competent court i.e. a court that would be “the most appropriate” for the conduct of proceedings and the issuance of a determination in view of the nature of a given case,’ stated the Constitutional Tribunal.
On 22 March 2017, at noon, the Constitutional Tribunal publicly delivered a ruling, issued at a sitting in camera, on the joined questions of law referred by the District Court in Gliwice (the 6th Division – Labour and Social Insurance) with regard to temporary work (the jurisdiction ratione loci of a labour court).
The Constitutional Tribunal adjudicated that Article 24 of the Act of 9 July 2003 on the Employment of Temporary Workers – insofar as the provision makes it impossible to bring an action before a court within whose jurisdiction ratione loci given work is being performed, was performed, or was supposed to be performed – is inconsistent with Article 32(1) in conjunction with Article 45(1) of the Constitution.
The ruling was unanimous.
The constitutional issue in the present case amounts to providing an answer to the question whether, in Article 24 of the Act on the Employment of Temporary Workers, the legislator’s indication of only a court whose scope ratio loci comprises the location of a temporary employment agency, as a court that is competent to consider the claims of a temporary worker, constitutes a restriction of access to a court by constitutionally-unjustified, unequal treatment of temporary workers as well as other workers whose claims may – pursuant to Article 461(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure – also be considered inter alia by a court a court within whose district of jurisdiction temporary work is being performed, was performed, or was supposed to be performed.
The Constitutional Tribunal deemed that, in the present case, an essential (relevant) characteristic which makes it possible to differentiate among parties to whom the guarantee of equal treatment applies should be the status of a worker employed on the basis of an employment contract for a specified period of time. At the same time, there was no doubt that the legislator specified the jurisdiction ratione loci of a court with regard to the claims of temporary workers differently than in the context of the claims of workers employed on the basis of the Polish Labour Code.
The Tribunal pointed out that the principle of equality is not absolute in character. Arguments that justify departures from the rule of equal treatment of similar subjects of rights and obligations must be relevant (rationally justified), proportional, and related to other constitutional values, principles or norms.
The Constitutional Tribunal found no rational objectives the realisation of which would require limitations to the jurisdiction ratione loci of a court considering claims made by a temporary worker merely to the scope ratione loci comprising the location of a temporary employment agency of the worker in question. Moreover, the Tribunal pointed out that there are strong arguments for the equal treatment of both groups of employees as regards access to a court. First of all, within the scope of labour law, the possibility of lodging a case with a different court than the one arising from general provisions on civil proceedings realises a vital requirement of the protection of workers, which follows from the need to provide equal opportunities to workers in relation to the employer, who is economically stronger. Secondly, the possibility of considering a case concerning the claims of a temporary worker by a court within whose district of jurisdiction certain work is being performed, was performed or was planned to be performed may affect procedural efficiency in a positive way.
Also, the Constitutional Tribunal deemed that the challenged regulation does not remain in relation with other constitutional values or norms, which justify different treatment of similar parties. On the contrary, what follows from the principle expressed in Article 24 of the Constitution is the state’s obligation to create the guarantees of the protection of workers, and one of the guarantees is that the legislator should provide for the right to consider a case concerning the claims of workers, including temporary workers, by a competent court i.e. a court that would be “the most appropriate” for the conduct of proceedings and the issuance of a determination in view of the nature of a given case. In the view of the Constitutional Tribunal, “the most appropriate court” for conducting proceedings is, inter alia, a court whose location – also as regards its accessibility in terms of travel costs – will not constitute a barrier preventing or considerably hindering the individual’s realisation of his/her constitutional right to a fair trial. In the Tribunal’s view, such a guarantee of the protection of employees comprises, inter alia, adopting – within the scope of labour-law cases – the possibility of lodging a case with a different court than the one arising from general provisions on civil proceedings.
The hearing was presided over by Judge Leon Kieres, and the Judge Rapporteur was Judge Sławomira Wronkowska-Jaśkiewicz.