Crushing Labor Court Judgment Against the Management of Zakłady Ceramiczne "Bolesławiec"

In September 2025, President Arkadiusz Grzesikowski and management board member Wojciech Huczyński dismissed a protected employee, the trade union treasurer, on disciplinary grounds. They did so without consulting the union. The woman took the case to the Labor Court.

On 21 April 2026, the District Court in Bolesławiec reinstated her and awarded her PLN 31,000 in remuneration for the time she remained unemployed. The court ordered the employer to pay PLN 1,552 in court fees to the State Treasury and additionally awarded the employee PLN 2,800 as reimbursement of legal representation costs. The judgment is not final.

“As the union chair, I am very happy with this judgment,” Agata Rusiecka told the istotne.pl portal. “Of course, I realize that it is not final and that the company’s management will certainly appeal, because that is what it always does. The real reason behind all the court proceedings currently under way is the management’s negative attitude toward the functioning of trade unions at the workplace and the lack of genuine dialogue that could make it possible to develop solutions acceptable to both sides,” the union leader adds.

Asked for comment, the president replied that at this stage he was refraining from any further comments. “The Labor Court’s decision of 21 April does not constitute a final resolution of the case. The matter is complex and remains pending,” Arkadiusz Grzesikowski added in his response.

A crushing judgment on the decisions of Zakłady’s management

In its reasoning, the court demolished all the reasons why the management had dismissed the employee without notice on the grounds of her alleged fault. The court noted that the woman had been employed by the company since 1999 and was conscientious, reliable and had never been disciplined by her employer, as confirmed by her personnel records.

“The court examined whether the reasons stated in the termination of the employment contract without notice due to the employee’s fault were true,” Judge Joanna Moroz-Korycka said in the oral reasoning for the judgment. “After conducting the evidentiary proceedings in this case, hearing the claimant and also hearing the witness—the doctor who issued the medical certificate confirming her incapacity for work—the court had no doubts that these reasons were untrue. The court did not find that the claimant had performed work during a period of incapacity for work, nor that she had violated the purpose of the medical leave, which simply did not exist on those days. The claimant indicated that the medical leave was intended to enable rehabilitation, which also did not preclude the activities she performed during the Ceramics Festival. The court finds that there were also violations concerning the termination of the employment contract of a trade union activist. Under the Trade Unions Act, the law clearly specifies the employer’s obligations when dismissing union activists covered by special protection,” the judge emphasized.

We described the management’s fight with the union members in the article: Zakłady Ceramiczne Bolesławiec. Fourth: You shall honor the president and your management board member.

“Unfortunately, this is a case of classic discrimination on the grounds of trade union activity,” comments Agata Rusiecka. “The company’s management is taking action aimed at dismantling employee structures. The current management does not accept the fact that, as the social side, we represent the employees, defending their dignity, rights, and material and moral interests, both collective and individual. According to the principle ‘give me a person and I will find a paragraph,’ we have become the targets of a direct attack,” Rusiecka adds.

Court criticizes Wojciech Huczyński’s actions toward the employee

In its reasoning, the court criticized the actions of the company’s management board member, who investigated the medical leave.

“The court does not accept at all the arguments presented by Wojciech Huczyński regarding how the respondent (Huczyński—editor’s note) checked when the employee’s medical appointment took place and when the medical certificate was issued. It is not the employer’s role to carry out such actions and then draw untrue conclusions about the employee on the basis of such checks, conclusions that were included in the termination of the employment contract without notice,” the court added.

Agata Rusiecka has no illusions that Wojciech Huczyński’s actions have one purpose. “The disciplinary dismissals, both of my colleague and of me, are intended to intimidate and paralyze the activities of our union and to create a chilling effect,” Rusiecka says. “Wojciech Huczyński, a member of the company’s management board, likes to refer to us as ‘high-ranking female trade union activists,’ thereby emphasizing that this is his greatest problem and the real reason for throwing us out of work,” the union leader adds.

Who will pay for it?

The employees have no illusions. They will pay—with their work.

“Let us remember that all financial costs associated with the management’s unlawful decisions burden the company,” Agata Rusiecka reminds us. “We are talking about compensation, court costs, and the considerable legal service costs of two law firms. Other people’s money is being spent with a light hand. In our opinion, this is action to the detriment of the company. Managing people is not about demonstrating strength, but about the ability to talk, respect, and responsibility. It is a pity that all the management’s statements about appreciating employees are merely empty words,” Agata Rusiecka concludes.

Let us recall that on 31 March 2026, another final and groundbreaking judgment concerning remuneration at Zakłady Ceramiczne “Bolesławiec” was issued by the Regional Court in Jelenia Góra. According to information from the union members, as of 23 April President Arkadiusz Grzesikowski had not enforced it.

“The due adjustment of incorrectly calculated remuneration has not been credited to the employee’s account,” Agata Rusiecka reports. “This shows a lack of respect for the law. Will it really be necessary to collect the debt through a bailiff and increase the costs? The company has a rather dismissive attitude toward the court. During the trial of the union treasurer, for seven months the company failed to fulfill its obligation to provide calculations of the dismissed employee’s remuneration,” Rusiecka adds.

The next case will be the trial of an employee whom the president first dismissed and then sued for PLN 25,000 over a post on the internet.