Court security means continuation of employment and social insurance coverage

Paweł Gorzelec
2 hours ago
4 min read

In labour law practice, courts increasingly issue interim measures securing employees’ claims even before a final judgment is delivered. One of the most significant consequences of such measures is an obligation imposed on the employer to continue employing an employee, despite the prior termination of the employment relationship — including termination without notice due to the employee’s fault.

According to a position presented by the Polish Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) in its letter of 27 November 2025 (ref. DI/200000/43/1170/2025), a court order granting security of a claim also results in retroactive social insurance coverage, effective from the date on which the employee was deregistered from social insurance.

Facts of the case assessed by ZUS

In the case analysed by ZUS, the employer terminated the employment contract pursuant to Article 52 § 1 of the Polish Labour Code, citing a serious breach of basic employee duties. Following the termination, the employee was correctly deregistered from social insurance.

The employee challenged the dismissal before the labour court. During the proceedings, the court issued an interim order securing the employee’s claim by ordering the employer to continue employing the employee until the final conclusion of the court proceedings.

As a result, the employer raised a practical question: From which date should the employee be re-registered for social insurance purposes?

Disciplinary dismissal – legal framework

Under the Polish Labour Code, an employer may terminate an employment contract without notice due to the employee’s fault in the event of:

a serious breach of basic employee duties,
commission of a criminal offence during the term of employment that makes continued employment impossible, provided the offence is obvious or confirmed by a final court judgment,
culpable loss of qualifications required to perform work in the given position.

Case law consistently emphasises that not every breach of employee duties justifies disciplinary dismissal. For such dismissal to be lawful, the employee’s conduct must be unlawful, culpable and must either infringe or pose a real threat to the employer’s interests.

As confirmed by the Supreme Court (decision of 8 November 2022, case no. III PSK 239/21), particular importance is attached to the degree of fault and the employee’s subjective attitude towards the act or omission in question.

Serious breach of employee duties

When assessing whether a breach qualifies as “serious”, it is first necessary to determine whether the duty breached was of a basic nature and, secondly, whether the breach was of sufficient gravity.

Importantly, the unlawfulness of the employee’s conduct alone is not sufficient. The assessment must take into account both the degree of fault and the potential or actual harm caused to the employer’s interests.

The essence of securing an employee’s claim

Pursuant to Article 755(5) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, in employment law cases involving employees subject to special protection against termination, the court — upon the employee’s request — shall grant security of the claim by ordering the employer to continue employing the employee until the proceedings are finally concluded.

The court may refuse to grant such security only if the claim is manifestly unfounded. At this stage, the court merely examines whether the claim has been plausibly substantiated, rather than assessing its final merits.

Social insurance obligations

Employees are subject to mandatory social insurance. Under Article 2 of the Polish Labour Code, an employee is a person employed under an employment contract. Article 22 § 1 further defines an employment relationship as involving the performance of work under the employer’s direction, at a place and time designated by the employer, in return for remuneration.

If these elements are present, the obligation to provide social insurance coverage arises by operation of law.

ZUS position

In its analysis, ZUS emphasised that an interim court order securing an employee’s claim results in a temporary restoration of the employment relationship, effective until a final court judgment is issued. The purpose of this mechanism is to protect the employee’s interests during ongoing court proceedings.

Consequently, ZUS concluded that an employee who is ordered by the court to be further employed is subject to social insurance from the date of termination of the employment relationship, i.e. from the date on which the employee was deregistered from social insurance.

ZUS ultimately confirmed that the correct approach is to re-register the employee for social insurance effective as of the original deregistration date, ensuring continuity of insurance coverage.

Practical implications for employers

For employers, a court order securing an employee’s claim means more than merely allowing the employee to return to work. It also entails:

the obligation to correct social insurance documentation,
payment of social insurance contributions for the retroactive period,
potential financial exposure in the event of incorrect settlements.

For this reason, interim measures in employment disputes should always be analysed not only from a labour law perspective, but also in terms of social insurance compliance.