On December 17, the first hearing in a lawsuit against Roche Polska
took place. (An earlier hearing was postponed.) The IT workers is suing
to have his employment status recognized, be reinstated at work and to
get compensation for lost benefits. The employer had been using third
parties and outside firms to pay the workers, even when the outside firm
had nothing to do with the work done. Such firms served only to be an
intermediary and to pay the workers. The company then did not give them
benefits nor did they give them any of the guarantees workers have under
the Labour Code.
At the beginning of the hearing, the lawyer for Roche proposed to
settle and pay the worker damages of 40,000 zloties (around 10,000
euros) if he would waive any further claims. He did not agree to this
and continued with the case.
Two witnesses were heard: one is a current employee of the firm,
another a former employee. Both IT workers were employed to work at
Roche through the outside firm. The first witness testified that he had
his work interview at Roche. There he learned about the work conditions,
pay, etc. and was told he would be hired. But then Roche told him he
had to work for another guy and sent him to him. Then he never even had
any contract with this outside firm. He worked the whole time at Roche.
Another witness, who worked through the same firm, but then had a
contract directly said that he saw no difference between his work at the
company and as a contractor, except that the direct employees were
invited to company parties and received benefits. Both worked in the
same place set by Roche and carried out the tasks set by their
supervisors at work. The firm which supposedly was there to give them
work never supervised or even was aware of the work of „its” workers and
there was no contact with that company and the workers at the Roche
office. Both of the workers had seen the owner of that company only
once.
The lawyer from Roche tried to convince the court that there was no
work relationship between Roche and such workers. In the response to the
suit, the lawyers for Roche argue that the firm does not know why the
workers had to be at work 8 hours a day and that they could come and go
as they please and didn't have to come to work. One worker testified
that Roche told him when he had to work and the other that he had to
come in between 8 and 9 and leave between 4 and 5. With that
information, the lawyer for Roche tried to suggest that such a situation
proves that the worker himself decided when he came to work, however
many workers are allowed to come in within some flexible timeframe, as
long as they work 8 hours a day. Further the lawyer tried to suggest
that perhaps the worker didn't have to come to the office, asking if it
were possible to do the work from home. But the question itself is a
trap, since if you ask anybody if it is possible that they could work
from home, they could say yes, meaning they could do their work at
home... but not meaning that they were allowed to do it. But the worker
said that there were daily meeting in the office where people were
assigned tasks, so he had to be in the office to know what to do. The
worker bringing the suit, who was defending himself, then asked the
other if he as a contractor had access to the Roche IT system outside of
the office and he said no. So in such a situation that his work was
dependent on working on and in the IT system which he had access to only
in the office, it was impossible to do this work elsewhere.
The next hearing in the case is planned for the end of June.
Unfortunately for workers, such is the pace that the Labour Courts
work at in Poland, especially in Warsaw. This is also a problem of
chronic underfunding of the system, which also means the courts cannot
hire new judges and they are themselves severely overworked. (Other
workers in the court system receive terribly wages, even just around
minimum wage. Three weeks ago there was a large protest of court workers
in Warsaw.)
We hope that more people will begin to talk about the problems of
workers fictitiously employed through outside companies thanks to this
case. We also would like to draw attention to the fact that, unlike
temporary work agencies, these intermediaries are not regulated in the
same ways and do not offer any guarantees to the workers rendering
services for them.
www.zsp.net.pl
No comments:
Post a Comment