The fact that a line manager has obtained information about circumstances justifying summary dismissal without notice does not necessarily mean that the time limit has begun to run.
Legal Background
In order to avoid a situation in which a serious act of misconduct committed by an employee is used by the employer as a means of exerting pressure, the legislature has strictly limited the period within which dismissal without notice may take place in such circumstances. Pursuant to Article 52 § 2 of the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy), dismissal without notice may occur within one month of the employer obtaining knowledge of the circumstances that would justify terminating the contract.
The Employer — Who Exactly?
The question of who constitutes the “employer” is of critical importance in the context of the above provision. As a general rule, the employer is the entity engaging the employee — that is, the business proprietor or, where the employer is a legal person, the members of its Management Board (Zarząd). It is accepted that in the case of a multi-member Management Board, it is sufficient for one of its members to have become aware of the situation. Importantly, the time limit also begins to run when the relevant information is obtained by another person who, in accordance with the organisation of the enterprise, is authorised to take personnel decisions in relation to the employee in question.
Who Does Not Qualify?
Case law unequivocally confirms that the obtaining of information by the employee’s direct line manager — provided that person is not simultaneously one of those identified above — does not trigger the commencement of this time limit.
Exceptions
There are, however, exceptions to the principle described above. In particularly justified cases, it may be held that the time limit began to run even where information about the misconduct did not in fact reach the employer, but ought to have done so. This arises where the failure to communicate is attributable to improper organisation of work — for example, the absence of adequate cover for the person whose duty it was to pass on the relevant information.