Facilitatations in the employer's obligations in practice
Check what facilitatations concerning the employer's obligations have been introduced as part of a package of 100 changes for companies.
Company Social Benefits Fund
It used to be: John Smith wants to expand his business and takes into account the recruitment of additional employees. Currently he employs 18 people (all under employment contracts), and needs an additional 5. John Smith is aware, however, that after hiring 20th employee he will have to set up the Company Social Benefits Fund and draw up the salary regulations and work regulations. Therefore, he starts to wonder whether to hire new staff on a mandate contracts (which will not be included in the limit ) or whether to set up second business activity for his son and employ additional staff there?
Now: John Smith will have to set up the Company Social Benefits Fund, issue the salary regulations and rules of procedure only where the number of his employees exceeds 49, or at the request of a trade union (if such operates in his company).
Certificate of employment
It used to be: John Smith has recruited a worker for a fixed period of one month. After the expiry of that period he had to go for 3 days to sign trade agreements in another city. After his return he met with his worker and agreed that he will employ him for a further period of three months. Provision is strict - despite the signing of the contract 5 days after the expiry of the previous contract of employment, John Smith must give the employee a certificate of employment for the previous contract. The employee does not need it unless... to present a certificate of employment from John Smith to the next employer that is... John Smith.
Now: John Smith will have to issue the certificate only if the employee requests it. Otherwise a certificate will be issued after the actual and definitive end of cooperation with the employee. The period between the expiry of the previous contract and the signing of the next one shall not exceed seven days, which will enable the successful business trip for John and to fulfil formalities relating to the employment of an employee under another agreement.
Accident insurance (ZUS) - the possibility of correcting data without penalty
It used to be: John Smith has a factory which produces car components. It currently employs 40 persons. When submitting the ZUS IWA document for the year 2015, he demonstrated that the number of victims of accidents at work was 5 persons, which is correct. Unfortunately he forgets that in accordance with the provisions, accident that occurred at the time before 2015, should be entered in the ZUS IWA document for 2015. Although it happened on 28 December 2014 it wasn't registered in the register of accidents until 5 January 2015. As there were 10 victims of accidents, failure to include it in ZUS IWA for 2015 results in significant undercutting rate of accident insurance.
John Smith recalls this principle only several months later, following the decision of ZUS finding irregularities in the document. Therefore, he immediately submits the correction. However, ZUS fixes the interest rate of contribution for the entire year at the level of 150% of the interest rate determined on the basis of the correct data. Furthermore, requires to pay the outstanding contributions, plus interest for late payment. ZUS takes the view that the question whether Mr Kowalski supplied incorrect data on purpose or not is irrelevant in the light of the provisions. Moreover, ZUS would not be able to verify whether Jan Kowalski actually was at fault. A similar situation occurs in the case of Mr Smith, who does not lodge a document ZUS IWA, but by himself fixes the interest rate of contribution, which proves to be understated.
Although the position of the courts is not uniform, in the event of an appeal against the decision of ZUS, both of them stand a chance of winning a court case if they can prove that their error was not wrongful. However, not all such cases have been settled in favour of payers. Moreover, such proceedings are lengthy and expensive. As a consequence, many entrepreneurs dearly pay for their mistakes.
Now: In the event of any irregularities of data, Mr Smith will have 14 days from the receipt of the letter from ZUS to submit an adjustment of information and avoid the unfortunate consequences. After all, everyone has the right make a mistake.
See more on the obligations relating to insurance in the guide I settle with ZUS within the framework of conducted business activityShare Print