Slawomir M. was employee of the bodyguard company „Ekotrade”. He was secretly organizing a trade union named “Solidarnosc”. The main aim of this trade union would have been to negotiate with the company to not only conclude contracts on commitment (on the basis of which 90% of staff was employed) but also labour contracts. In December 2007 a meeting of those people interested in forming the trade union Solidarnosc took place in the Warsaw office of Solidarnosc. The meeting was attended by bodyguards who wanted to join the trade union. A vice-director in the Warsaw office of “Ekotrade” was pretending to be a bodyguard willing to join the trade union by giving a false name and a non-existent phone number. Next day after this meeting Sławomir M. and one other person engaged in creating the trade union lost their job. They started proceedings in the District Court in Warsaw.

On the ground of polish Labour Code there is a principle of the equal treatment in employment. In polish law it refers to employment on the ground of employment contract, not on e.g. service contract and other civil-law relations.

In this case even though a contract between Sławomir M. and Ekotrade was from the formal view the civil contract, the character of the relation between them and the way that S. Markwas had to carry out his duties was in fact the employment. It was a starting point to recognition of discrimination in this case because of his activity in labor union.

Especially difficult situation is with bodyguard companies that usually employ the bodyguards on the ground of service contract which does not guarantee the all social protection related to employment contract.

The right to form and join trade unions is restricted in a considerable way by Polish entrepreneurs in a private sector and state organs are not effective in monitoring and sanctioning the violation of this right.

It is one of the first discrimination cases before Polish courts. It is rare to win a case which relates to a discrimination because of trade union activity. The case also shows that the level of protection is not adequate in a light of the damages connected with the loss of job.

Barbara Grabowska