The aim of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the legislation on the fight against illegal employment both at the supranational level of the European Union and at the EU Member States level, inter alia, in Poland, France, and Germany. The leading method in the study was the comparative-legal method. It helped to compare the peculiarities of the practice of European countries in the field of combating illegal employment in the EU Member States, as well as to identify how this issue is regulated. The results demonstrate that illegal employment destroys legal jobs, leads to the increase in unemployment and deprives the state of revenues such as tax and social contributions, etc. That is why international declarations and conventions should guarantee the right to work in the European Union for the citizens of non-European states.

The purpose of the paper is to analyse issues related to personal data processing
within the framework of co-operation between the employer and trade unions in
individual employment matters. The issues of personal data processing in collective relations are becoming more important especially due to lack of detailed legislative solutions, which results in the necessity to apply the general provisions of the GDPR as well as the latest changes to the Trade Unions Act. Pursuant to these changes, not only employees, but also persons performing gainful employment who are not employees can create and join trade unions as well as can be defended by the trade unions. The legislator frequently finds it difficult to adjust the protection of personal data to the specificity of collective relations, and the way in which the relationship between employers and trade unions is shaped in individual employment matters raises many questions in the context of personal data protection. The issue in question has not been explored in depth in the professional labour law literature. Thus, research on this subject is novel and justified from both the theoretical and the practical perspective. In the article, the formal-dogmatic method of research was used.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt an evaluation of the legal regulations relating to the issue of monitoring in the workplace. The Author defines sources of the employer’s right to control the employee and analyses the limits of this right. Finally, the Author states some provisions of conducting monitoring in the workplace.

One of the main provisions in shaping legal obligations between the parties is the freedom of contract. Although the parties are free to choose the provisions of their agreement, the content and the aim of the contract cannot contradict the essence and nature of the contract of employment, the act and the principles of the community life. Thereby, in order to engage an employee based on a long term contract of employment for a specified period, along with a short, two weeks notice termination period, justified and rational presumptions should be in place. In other words, taking into consideration current provisions of law, long term contract of employment is acceptable; however its validity is depended on the circumstances of each individual case.

The paper analyses challenging the validity of an employment contract by the Social Insurance Institution, in the course of a control of correctness of the determination of the social insurance obligation that results from the employee status. In the first part, the author analyses the problem of a fictitious contract and acting against the law or with the intention to circumvent the law, or contrary to the principles of community life. He indicates documents and information that are most often requested by ZUS, and describes the situations which are most thoroughly examined. In the next part, following issues are examined: the existence of an employment relation, salary, employing relatives, concluding the employment contract in order to register for insurance purposes and the situation of pregnant employees or employees shortly before retirement. The paper is concluded with the most frequent arguments for, or against the existence of employment and the most advantageous practices to litigate with the ZUS are described.

Zastosowanie pojęcia „uczuć religijnych” w art. 196 Kodeksu karnego, penalizującego ich obrazę, może wydawać się krokiem w kierunku społecznego kompromisu, łączącego światopoglądową neutralność państwa z ochroną imaginarium religijnego przez prawo. Tym samym sformułowanie to mogłoby być zręcznym rozwiązaniem legislacyjnym służącym koncyliacji i spójności społecznej. Niniejszy artykuł ma za cel omówienie negatywnych konsekwencji sformułowania art. 196 Kodeksu karnego w kategorii „uczuć religijnych”. Skupienie się na negatywnych implikacjach obecności tej frazy w prawie służyć ma pokazaniu, iż nie spełnia ona pokładanych w niej oczekiwań: nastręcza trudności interpretacyjnych, brakuje jej cech dobrego prawa, jest daleka od realizmu psychologicznego oraz dzieli i polaryzuje społeczeństwo zamiast je spajać. Pokazuję, w jaki sposób problemy te wynikają właśnie z przyjęcia kategorii uczuć religijnych. W pierwszej części artykułu identyfikuję i omawiam konsekwencje wynikające z takiego sformułowania dla dogmatyki prawa. Druga część pracy poświęcona jest implikacjom tej frazy na gruncie teorii prawa, w kontekście postulatów jurysprudencji. Trzecia część analizuje skutki sformułowania w dyskursie publicznym i szerszej sferze społecznej, przyjmując perspektywę ekspresyjnej funkcji prawa. Tekst przynosi nowe spojrzenie na zagrożenia wnoszone do prawa przez przyjmowaną frazeologię oraz na specyfikę odwołań do emocjonalności w dyskursie prawnym, jednocześnie oferując sugestie potencjalnych rozwiązań.