Publication date: January 23, 2026
In the face of dynamic changes in the labor market and the growing legal awareness of employees, the proper conduct of the dismissal process is becoming one of the key challenges for human resources departments and management staff.
Termination and expiration of the contract
First, it is important to distinguish between two basic procedures for terminating an employment relationship, which are often confused in practice, leading to procedural errors. Although both termination and expiration of a contract lead to the end of employment, their legal nature is different. Termination of an employment contract is the result of a declaration of intent by one or both parties to the employment relationship. This requires active action, such as submitting a written document or proposing an agreement. Expiration of a contract, on the other hand, occurs by operation of law in strictly defined situations, regardless of the parties’ will.
Ways of terminating the contract other than notice
According to applicable regulations, an employment contract may be terminated in four main ways:
By mutual consent: This is the least formalized method, based on the consensus of both parties. The parties may terminate their employment at any time and date, mutually agreeing on a termination date. This method does not require notice periods (unless the parties so agree) or the requirement to provide a reason. This is the safest method in terms of legal risk, as by giving consent, the employee effectively forecloses any claims for reinstatement unless they demonstrate a defect in the declaration of intent (e.g., an error or threat). By mutual consent, any type of employment contract can be terminated at any time. The provisions regarding defects in the declaration of intent apply. Termination of a contract based on mutual consent generally does not affect employee rights, for example, by losing them or limiting their scope. Termination by mutual consent should be distinguished from the parties agreeing on an earlier termination date after one of the parties has given notice.
By a declaration by one of the parties without observing the notice period (termination without notice): This procedure, commonly known as “disciplinary” (when it occurs due to the employee’s fault) or immediate termination, is an extraordinary measure. It can only be used in strictly defined cases of serious misconduct, loss of rights, or prolonged absence, and as a last resort when no alternatives are available. Two conditions must be met for this procedure to be valid. The first is the employee’s intentional fault or gross negligence. Ordinary negligence or a mistake are not sufficient. The violation must threaten the employer’s essential interests. The second is compliance with the deadline. A notice of termination under this procedure cannot be made after one month from the date the employer becomes aware of the circumstances justifying termination. This deadline is absolute and runs from the moment the person authorized to terminate contracts, i.e., the employer or a person authorized by the employer, e.g., the management board or HR director, becomes aware of the misconduct, not the immediate superior, unless they have such authority.
Upon expiry of the period for which it was concluded, which applies to fixed-term contracts (for a trial period, for a fixed period).
The fourth and final method is termination by notice by one party (termination by notice): This is a standard, unilateral termination procedure. Termination by notice is a “regular” method of terminating a contract, meaning the employer has the right to select personnel and terminate an employee who fails to meet expectations, provided procedures are followed and the true reason is indicated (in the case of indefinite-term contracts). This is a unilateral declaration of intent made by the employer or employee to the other party, which terminates the contract upon the expiration of the notice period. The differences between employers and employees are manifest in the fact that regulations impose certain restrictions on the employer’s termination of the contract, while the employee is not bound by anything other than the written form and the notice period. During this period, they are bound by all employment obligations and rights they had prior to submitting the notice.
Notice period
The length of the notice period serves a protective function, giving the employee time to find new employment and the employer time to recruit a replacement. Since February 22, 2016, these periods have been equalized for fixed-term and indefinite-term contracts and depend solely on length of service with a given employer. For length of service less than 6 months, this will be 2 weeks. Special rules apply to trial period contracts, where the periods are: 3 working days for a trial period of up to 2 weeks, 1 week for a trial period exceeding 2 weeks, and 2 weeks for a trial period of 3 months. If length of service is at least 6 months, the notice period is 1 month. Six months of service must expire no later than the date of notice. At least three years of service provide 3 months of notice. The notice period for an employment contract covering a week or a month, or a multiple thereof, ends on Saturday or the last day of the month, respectively. A notice period specified in days includes working days, i.e., Monday through Saturday. Statutory notice periods are minimum periods, but within the limits set forth in Art. 18 of the Labour Code, it is also permissible to change them, not only by shortening them, but also by extending them, as stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court II PK 302/10 of 26 April 2011.
Procedure for terminating an employment contract
One of the serious procedural risks is omitting or improperly conducting consultations with the company trade union. This obligation applies to the intention to terminate a contract concluded for both an indefinite and fixed-term period. The employer must notify the trade union representing the employee, either internal or external, in writing, of the intention to terminate the contract. It is crucial that this notification be made before the final decision is made and the letter is delivered to the employee. Handing out a notice of termination before the consultation period expires is a flagrant violation of the law, unless the organization expresses its position before it expires, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in judgment I PK 8/06. In the letter to the union, the employer must specify the specific reason for the dismissal. This reason cannot be later modified in the letter to the employee. If new circumstances arise during or after the consultation, the procedure must be repeated. The trade union’s position is not binding on the employer. However, the union’s opinion can be significant evidence in court if the union accurately demonstrates the weakness of the employer’s arguments.
Termination of an employment contract should be in writing. Although oral notice is effective, it is legally invalid and gives the employee a claim for compensation. However, any defective form, such as electronic notice, can be remedied. Preparing and sending an identical declaration of intent to terminate an employment contract by the employer, which was previously delivered to the employee electronically and later by post, does not violate the requirement for written notice, as stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of January 18, 2007, file reference II PK 178/06. The letter must first state the date of its preparation. This date will not be considered the effective date of termination. According to the Civil Code, which applies here through Article 300 of the Labor Code, a declaration of intent is deemed to have been made when it reaches the addressee, i.e., the employee, in a manner that allows them to become familiar with its content. If an employee refuses to accept a letter delivered in person but has had the opportunity to become familiar with it, the declaration is deemed to have been effectively made. A memorandum of understanding is then prepared. If sent by registered mail, a presumption of service applies. The letter is deemed served seven days after the second notification (14 days in total). However, Supreme Court case law is evolving towards examining this possibility. If the employee demonstrates that they were in the hospital or on leave at the time of notification and were unable to receive the letter, this presumption may be rebutted. A termination notice sent by email is effective but invalid unless it is accompanied by a qualified electronic signature. A standard email or scan of the letter does not meet the written form requirement under the Labor Code, which entitles the employee to compensation for violating the formal requirements.
Article 30 § 4 of the Labor Code requires employers to provide a reason justifying the termination of an indefinite-term contract. This is the element most frequently examined by labor courts.
As the Supreme Court has ruled, the obligation to prove the reasons for terminating an employment contract rests with the employer pursuant to Article 6 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 300 of the Labor Code. Moreover, courts at all levels have repeatedly emphasized that the reasons given in the termination of an employee’s employment contract define the limits of its judicial review.
The reason cannot be general. Phrases such as “failure to meet expectations,” “loss of trust,” or “inappropriate behavior” are insufficient unless supported by a description of specific facts, events, dates, or numbers. Specificity should be assessed from the perspective of the employee (the addressee of the declaration of intent). It is the employee’s responsibility to know and understand why the employer is deciding to terminate the employment. As indicated by the Supreme Court in its judgment of October 1, 1997, file reference I PKN 315/97, providing a reason should enable the employee to clearly assess the reasons and the possibility of effectively challenging the employer’s actions. An example would be a dismissal due to downsizing without specifying the selection criteria for the dismissed employees. An employee deprived of such information is unable to verify whether the employer’s decision was correct, arbitrary or discriminatory, although the Supreme Court’s case law is not uniform in this regard.
The reason must exist objectively. A spurious reason (e.g., the elimination of a position) cannot be indicated when, in reality, the reason is a personnel conflict or the desire to hire someone else for the same position. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the distinction between “truth” and “validity” of a reason. Truth means consistency with objectively verifiable reality. If the employer cites “frequent lateness” as the reason, and the work time records show 100% punctuality, the reason is not genuine. The consistency of the employer’s actions is also important for assessing this premise. A curious example analyzed by the Supreme Court is the case of an employee from a district office. She was dismissed due to unsatisfactory job performance after being awarded the Bronze Medal for Long Service at the request of her superior. This award is awarded for 10 years of impeccable public service. In the Court’s opinion, the sudden dismissal “conflicted” with the earlier request, which was motivated by impeccable performance of duties.
The reason must be significant enough to justify termination of employment. It cannot be trivial. In its 2024 judgment, reference I PSKP 38/23, the Supreme Court analyzed the case of dismissal due to “professional incompetence” and “conflict.” The court found that these reasons must be balanced against the employer’s interests and the good of the workplace. Minor misconduct, especially in the absence of ill will, may not justify such a drastic step as dismissal, especially in light of Article 8 of the Labor Code (abuse of subjective rights). However, as the Supreme Court emphasizes, termination is a “normal” method of terminating a contract, so the reason does not have to amount to the “grave breach” required for disciplinary dismissal. An employer has the right to select employees who guarantee the achievement of business goals.
The reason must also be appropriate to the circumstances and the gravity of any irregularities committed by the employee. It is noted that omitting less severe measures, such as disciplinary discussions or disciplinary sanctions, may lead to allegations of abuse of power.
Acceptable reasons include:
Loss of trust—This is an extremely broad, yet risky, category. Case law from years past clearly indicates that it is not a cause in itself, but must be a consequence of specific employee behavior. For individuals in managerial, decision-making, or property-managing positions (e.g., chief accountant, cashier), the bar is set higher. Such employees are required to maintain “special trust,” and even minor breaches can permanently damage this trust, justifying termination. Examples include: Using official information for personal purposes, e.g., using the company’s strategic plans, revealed during work, for personal financial investments, or Competitive or disloyal activity. Even if an employee has not signed a non-compete agreement, taking actions that threaten the employer’s interests (e.g., advising clients to use a competitor’s services) destroys the bond of trust. For managers, a loss of trust may be associated with a failure to achieve established goals, provided the employer demonstrates that hiring a new employee offers reasonable hope for improved performance. Even minor irregularities in the accounting of business expenses can also constitute grounds for a loss of trust, especially in positions involving financial responsibility.
Improper performance of duties. This category includes poor productivity, errors, lateness, or lack of care. Improper performance of duties can justify termination even when it is not the employee’s fault (e.g., due to incompetence, ineptitude, or lack of talent). An employer has the right to expect results, not just diligence, but if they decide to terminate a contract, the documentation justifying the termination must be thorough and reliable. If an employee has committed a violation several times but has been reprimanded and corrected their behavior, termination for this reason will be considered excessively harsh and unfair. Minor violations do not justify termination. The exception is when they occur repeatedly. The condition of permanence must be met by any deficiency that constitutes grounds for termination. In case IV P 137/13, the District Court of Wrocław-Śródmieście in Wrocław analyzed the termination of an IT specialist who was accused of “inefficiency, low efficiency, and poor knowledge of the issues.” The court found these grounds specific because the employer was able to demonstrate specific projects the plaintiff failed to complete and gaps in technical knowledge. It is worth noting that the fact that an employee has previously been disciplined (e.g., a reprimand) for a given offense does not preclude termination of the contract for the same reason if the conduct is repeated or its consequences are severe. Another factor may be professional incompetence. The Supreme Court’s judgment (I PSKP 38/23) indicated that professional incompetence may not constitute a sufficient cause if it is not linked to specific harm or risk to the employer, and the employee demonstrates due diligence. This means that dismissing an employee who “tried hard but is less capable” is more difficult than dismissing a negligent employee.
An employee’s illness is a circumstance beyond their control, and they are protected during their illness. However, upon returning to work, the employer may terminate the contract if absences were frequent, prolonged, typically exceeding six months, and disrupted work. They can also be short-term but sudden. In the above-mentioned situation, we have a conflict between the right to health care and the employer’s right to run an effective business, which the court will likely also consider. Merely taking sick leave (even frequently) is not sufficient. Disorganization must occur and must be objectively real. In justifying the claim, the employer must demonstrate the negative impact of the absence on the company. Examples include: the need to hire replacement employees or contract workers, the need to pay overtime to other employees who had to take over the absentee’s duties, delays in project or order completion, or difficulties in planning team work due to the unpredictable nature of the employee’s presence.
Reasons unrelated to the employee, such as restructuring, elimination of a position or reduction of staff, are common grounds for dismissal.
The change must be actual, and the position must cease to exist within the company structure. If responsibilities are merely transferred to a new person under a different job title, the elimination is merely apparent. The justification must be economic, for example, related to cost optimization or the company’s difficult financial situation due to market conditions. Another reason could be job cuts due to automation or centralization of work. In an era of rapid technological development, this is very common. For evidentiary purposes, internal documents—management board resolutions, organizational regulations, financial analyses, or restructuring plans—suffice.
Selection criteria are also an important element. If one of several identical positions is being eliminated, for example, reducing two of 10 cashier positions, the employer must provide justification for the dismissal by indicating the objective, fair, and verifiable criteria used to select this specific employee for dismissal. The most important criterion is professional suitability. This encompasses qualifications, skills, and versatility. The Supreme Court considers this criterion to be fundamental and most objective. Another, and perhaps most important, criterion is productivity. This includes sales results, quality of work, and punctuality. These must be based on hard data, not subjective perceptions. Another factor is length of employment. It typically protects employees with more years of experience. However, it cannot be the sole criterion, but only a secondary one. If a junior employee is significantly more productive, their position should be maintained. Frequent absentees may be dismissed, but the reasons for the absence must be considered. If these absences are due to childcare, this criterion may be considered indirect discrimination based on gender or family circumstances. Courts also point to the corrective role of personal circumstances. When choosing between two similarly qualified employees, it is important to consider whether one of them is, for example, a single parent, the sole breadwinner, or the caregiver of a disabled person.
The notice of termination should clearly state that the employee’s position has been eliminated or that a reduction in staff in a specific department is taking place, and that the dismissed employee’s position cannot be changed. Hiring a new employee later does not constitute a false dismissal, provided the employer can prove that the new role involves different responsibilities or requires different qualifications.
Another cause is the loss of professional qualifications, such as a driving license, a license to operate technical equipment, or the right to practice medicine or law. These often make it inappropriate to maintain employment.