Contrary to appearances, the answer to this question is not straightforward. Consider a situation in which an employee is employed simultaneously under a contract of employment and a contractor agreement (umowa zlecenie). Overtime work was initially settled under the contractor agreement, but a subsequent court ruling determined that it should have been settled under the employment contract.
From an employer’s perspective (or that of an entity within the same corporate group), there is a significant practical problem here: what should be done if an employee were to receive double remuneration for the same work?
Although claims for the restitution of undue performance are generally dismissed, exceptions are allowed in certain circumstances. Let’s look at some situations in which the restitution of remuneration is feasible and instances when the courts do rule in favour of employees.
Do courts allow reimbursement of remuneration under a contractor agreement, and if so, in what circumstances?
An analysis of available civil court rulings suggests that the prevailing case law is not favourable to claimants.
In most cases:
- Claims for payment based on the provisions on unjust enrichment or undue performance are dismissed
- The courts recognise that the contractor agreements were valid and constituted a real basis for payment
- The argument is raised that the employees have used the benefits for their current needs
However, there is one significant decision in which the court accommodated the employer’s claim.
In its judgment of 20 January 2020, the Regional Court in Warsaw partially admitted the claim for restitution of undue performance.
However, this case had a special context. In earlier proceedings before the labour court, it was finally established that:
- The contractor agreements were not actually performed
- The work was performed entirely within the framework of an employment relationship
- The employee had already received overtime pay
Following this ruling, the company filed a claim for reimbursement of payments made under the contractor agreements.
The court ruled that, as the contractor agreements had not been performed and the remuneration had been paid, the employee had obtained a financial benefit without legal basis.
The key factor was the finding that the remuneration paid was not in exchange for any service, and that the contractor agreement only provides for payment once the assignment has been completed.
However, the court also found that some of the claims were time-barred and therefore only partially admitted the claim.
Why were claims dismissed in other cases?
The contractor agreements were valid and were carried out
In its judgment of 17 November 2020, the Court of Appeal in Warsaw ruled that the contractor agreements constituted a genuine legal basis for the payments and that the subsequent court order for the employer to pay overtime remuneration did not result in financial loss for the company (the client).
Furthermore, the court pointed out that, even if the benefit were deemed undue, the principle of consumption of benefits would apply. Therefore, the employee was not required to repay the benefit.
Fictitiousness in labour law ≠ fictitiousness in civil law
In a judgment delivered on 30 September 2021, the Regional Court in Warsaw clearly stated that it is permissible to enter into a contractor agreement with one entity while working for another company. The court also clarified that challenging a contractor agreement in an employment dispute does not automatically render it fictitious under civil law.
The court therefore held that:
- The contractor agreements were actually performed.
- The performances were equivalent.
- There was no impoverishment on the part of the company
Important position of the Supreme Court
It is also worth noting that, in its judgment of 22 August 2018, the Supreme Court confirmed that only the employer may pay remuneration for work. Therefore, payments made by another entity under a contractor agreement cannot be counted towards overtime pay.
This ruling is of significant importance in disputes concerning the classification of payments.
When is reimbursement of remuneration feasible?
In summary, reimbursement of remuneration under contractor agreements can only be effectively claimed in exceptional cases, where the employer can demonstrate that:
- The contractor agreements were not actually performed
- No services were provided by the employee
- The remuneration paid was not in exchange for a service
In other cases, the case law remains unfavourable to claimants.
Do you have genuine grounds for claiming reimbursement of remuneration paid under contractor agreements?
Feel free to contact us – we can help you assess the risks and your chances of success in court.
Any questions? Contact us
Karolina Klunder
