An employee has given notice in Poland. Can you still dismiss them without notice for serious misconduct?

An employee has given notice in Poland. Can you still dismiss them without notice for serious misconduct?

An employee’s representative calls to say, “My client has already sent their notice.” It may be tempting to put your planned dismissal on hold. Under Polish employment law, that could be a costly mistake: giving notice does not end the employment relationship immediately. It starts a notice period, during which dismissal without notice for serious employee misconduct may still be possible.

For employers whose staff have individual access to transaction systems, company cards, or payment platforms, the decision can be urgent. Even where the underlying misconduct is well documented, a case can turn on the deadline, the reasons stated in the dismissal document, its form, and whether it reached the employee.

The Polish rules at a glance

This article uses summary dismissal to mean an employer’s termination without notice due to serious employee misconduct under Article 52 § 1 point 1 of the Polish Labor Code. It is distinct from an employee’s resignation by notice.

Employee notice does not prevent summary dismissal

An employee’s notice under Article 32 in conjunction with Article 36 of the Labor Code starts the notice period; it does not itself end employment. The employer can still deliver a summary dismissal while the employment relationship exists.

The order in which the declarations reach their recipients matters, as addressed by the Polish Supreme Court in Resolution III ZP 31/98 and Judgment II PK 372/15.

Consider the source article’s example:

If the summary dismissal reaches the employee before the notice period ends, the employment certificate should identify termination under Article 52 § 1 point 1 of the Labor Code, not termination on the employee’s notice. An employer cannot dismiss someone from a contract that has already ended.

A phone call saying that the employee has sent their notice is not the same as that notice reaching the employer. Until the employee’s declaration arrives in a way that allows the employer to read it, do not treat the call as a reason to stop preparing the dismissal (Article 61 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 300 of the Labor Code).

The one-month limit: when it starts and what it must cover

Identify when the authorized person learned of the breach

Under Article 52 § 2 of the Labor Code, the month starts when the person authorized to perform employment-law acts for the employer under Article 31 receives reliable, specific information about the breach. The relevant date is not necessarily:

• the date the conduct occurred;
• the date data became technically available in a system; or
• the date an IT employee or external provider learned of it.

Further checks do not move the start date once the employer has complete information, according to Supreme Court Judgment I PK 183/16. An investigation may delay the start only while the available information is not yet sufficiently reliable, as discussed in Judgment II PK 134/16.

Record when the authorized person learned each alleged ground. The source treats each ground as having its own time limit: a ground whose limit has expired cannot be rescued simply by including it alongside more recent allegations.

Do not spend the month on the wrong tasks

You must also allow time within that month for any required three-day trade union consultation under Article 52 § 3, delivery of the declaration, and problems such as an unanswered door, an address change, or uncollected mail. In practice, the time available for preparation may be only twenty-some days rather than a full month. The employee’s notice period may impose an earlier endpoint still.

For a continuing breach involving repeated acts, the limit may run from the last event in the series (Supreme Court Judgment II PK 134/16). For an ongoing omission, such as failing to account for expenses, the source states that the limit does not start while the situation continues (Supreme Court Judgment I PKN 700/00).

How to deliver the dismissal when the employee is absent

The employee may have stopped coming to work or answering messages. Neither absence nor posting a letter stops the one-month clock.

Use the required form

Article 30 § 3 of the Labor Code requires written form. Under the source’s approach, use either:

1. a paper document bearing a handwritten signature; or
2. a digital document bearing a qualified electronic signature.

A scan of a signed document, photograph, unsigned PDF, or document with a non-qualified electronic signature does not meet that written-form requirement. Do not rely on those formats as your dismissal document.

Arrange parallel delivery and keep a record

The practical procedure in the source is to use two channels on the same day:

1. Visit the employee’s home address. Send two people, at least one of whom has written authorization to act for the employer under Article 31 of the Labor Code. If the employee refuses the document despite having an opportunity to read it, the refusal does not defeat delivery. Record the date, time, address, attendees, what occurred, and the employee’s response in a memorandum signed by both attendees.
2. Post a priority registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt that same day.

A properly issued postal notice of attempted delivery creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee had an actual opportunity to read the document (Supreme Court Judgment I PK 37/05). Deliberately leaving a letter uncollected despite a genuine opportunity to collect it does not necessarily prevent the declaration from taking effect (Supreme Court Resolution III ZP 31/98).

That is not an automatic two-week deemed-delivery rule. The deemed-service rule in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure does not automatically apply to declarations under Article 61 of the Civil Code. An employment court will consider whether this employee was actually able to collect the letter (Supreme Court, II PSKP 112/21). The employer bears the risk, so do not post the letter in the final days of the month.

What about email? The source states that sending the document to an employee’s private email address is permissible only where the employee previously consented to that channel for work-related contact and the authorized person uses a qualified electronic signature. An emailed scan does not meet the stated written-form requirement.

Sick leave does not suspend the deadline

Article 41 of the Labor Code prohibits giving notice of termination during justified absence. The source distinguishes that prohibition from termination without notice under Article 52: summary dismissal is, as a rule, possible during sick leave. Illness-related absence does not suspend the Article 52 § 2 one-month limit (Labor Code, Journal of Laws 2025, item 277).

Four decisions to make before delivering the declaration

1. Is summary dismissal still possible?

Put two dates side by side:

• When did the person authorized under Article 31 learn of the breach? This determines the relevant one-month limit.
• If the employee effectively gave notice, when does that notice period end?

If either deadline has passed, consider other routes separately, such as pursuing a loss, issuing a demand for payment, or reporting a suspected criminal offense.

2. What exactly will the document say?

Article 30 § 4 of the Labor Code requires a specific, genuine, and verifiable reason. The source warns that the employer cannot add new grounds after delivering the declaration: the court will examine what the document said.

Build the reasons around independent allegations. For each, set out:

The source treats loss of trust as a conclusion from the described breaches, linked to the role—for example, independent work, limited day-to-day supervision, or access to tools capable of creating liabilities—not as a standalone Article 52 § 1 point 1 ground.

Address a defense you already know about. If the employee says a manager gave verbal approval, state what your verification found; for example, approval for one transaction but no request for approval of later transactions.

3. Is trade union consultation or consent required?

Ask the workplace trade union organization whether the employee is covered by its protection during preparation, even if the employee has not mentioned union membership. Under Article 52 § 3 of the Labor Code, allow three days for objections before delivery. The opinion is not binding, but omitting required consultation is a separate procedural violation that can support an employee claim under Article 56 of the Labor Code.

For a trade union official with special protection under Article 32 of the Trade Unions Act, the source says consent, not merely an opinion, is required.

4. How will you handle a loss or proposed settlement?

Do not sign a settlement waiving claims before the full extent of a loss is known. Initial findings may cover only some transactions, with further checks revealing more.

For intentional misconduct, Article 122 of the Labor Code provides for liability for the full loss, without the three-month remuneration cap referred to in Article 119. A deduction from pay requires the employee’s written consent to a specified amount known to them under Article 91; a blanket consent is not enough.

While verification continues, say so. Pursue a quantified amount separately through a demand for payment supported by a list of transactions.

Checklist before delivery

Use this as a working HR and legal checklist, adapting it to the case rather than treating dispatch as proof of receipt.

• Record when the breach became known and identify the person authorized under Article 31 of the Labor Code who learned of it.
• Work back from the planned delivery date, allowing for the one-month limit, three days for any required union consultation, and delivery time.
• Check the time limit for each proposed ground.
• Send the trade union inquiry and allow the required three days where consultation applies; check separately whether protected-official consent is needed.
• Verify the employee’s current address against the personnel file.
• Confirm in writing the authority of the person delivering the declaration under Article 31.
• State independent grounds with the duty breached, supporting facts, and reasons the breach is serious.
• Include information on the right to appeal to the employment court, including the 21-day period and the competent court.
• Use a handwritten signature on paper or a qualified electronic signature on a digital document—not a scan or a PDF lacking a qualified signature.
• Preserve system evidence before revoking access. Record the export date, who performed it, and which system it came from.
• Prepare a memorandum template for the home visit and complete it to reflect what actually happens.
• Post the priority registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt on the same day as the visit.
• If summary dismissal takes effect, prepare the Polish employment certificate identifying Article 52 § 1 point 1 of the Labor Code, rather than the employee’s notice, as the mode of termination.
• If the employee does not use Polish, prepare a bilingual version identifying the Polish version as binding and have a lawyer verify the translation of the legal grounds.
• For a foreign national, check the work permit’s expiry and the stated obligation to notify the wojewoda (provincial governor) within seven days after work ends.

Getting the process under control

Summary dismissal is a timetable, not just a letter. Investigation, union requirements, evidence preservation, the wording of the grounds, and delivery must all fit within the applicable deadlines.

We support technology and service businesses with tailored checklists and dismissal documents; procedures covering discovery through delivery; service records and policies for company tools; bilingual documents and IT evidence preservation; recovery of losses under Article 122 of the Labor Code; and employment litigation. We consider employment decisions alongside the business’s IP, ownership structure, and growth plans.

If an employee has given notice and you need to establish what can still be done, contact us.

Frequently asked questions

Can I summarily dismiss an employee who has already given notice?
Yes, while the employment relationship continues, provided the other requirements are met. If the employer’s declaration reaches the employee before the notice period ends, the contract ends by summary dismissal and the employment certificate should identify Article 52 § 1 point 1 of the Labor Code. See Supreme Court Judgment II PK 372/15.

I learned about several breaches in stages. When does the month start?
Assess each ground separately from when the authorized person received reliable, specific information about it. For a continuing series of acts, the limit may run from the last act. Do not assume that including an older allegation alongside timely ones makes it timely.

Can I wait for accounting to calculate the full loss?
Do not let that calculation delay delivery beyond the Article 52 limit. The amount can be pursued separately by a demand for payment. Under Article 122 of the Labor Code, the source identifies liability for the full loss where the misconduct was intentional.

The employee is absent and will not answer calls. What should I do?
The source recommends a documented home visit by two people, at least one authorized to act for the employer, and priority registered mail with acknowledgment of receipt posted the same day. Preserve evidence of what happened. Do not assume that mailing alone—or a later postal notice—establishes receipt within the deadline.

Can I use email or send a scan?
A scan, photograph, unsigned PDF, or non-qualified electronic signature does not meet the stated written-form requirement. The source permits delivery to a private email address only where the employee previously consented to work-related contact there and the authorized person signs the digital document with a qualified electronic signature.

Must I consult a union if the employee never disclosed membership?
Ask the workplace trade union organization whether the employee is covered, and do so early enough to allow the three-day period for objections where consultation is required. Omitting required consultation can itself support a claim under Article 56 of the Labor Code. A specially protected union official requires consent rather than an opinion.