A female employee of the store on Starzyńskiego Street in Bolesławiec wrote to our editorial office, complaining about the conditions in the staff facilities. In her opinion, a shared toilet and changing room for women and men is a situation that should not occur. She also has doubts about cleaning these rooms.

“What I want to know is whether it is permissible for staff to share a bathroom, that is, a toilet together with a changing room, for women and men. And why do some employees accept this? I can’t imagine changing clothes in the presence of a colleague when the changing room is shared by men and women,” we read in the email.

The author of the report adds: “Cleaning the staff facilities is the responsibility of people who work in the meat department.”

At this stage, this is solely the employees’ account. We were unable to independently verify it—we do not know whether this situation actually exists in this store or what it is like in other outlets of the chain. Dino did not reply to our email of October 7.

We also do not know whether the shared rooms result from specific regulations at this outlet, the layout of the rooms in the building, or a management decision. We sent questions on this matter to the Dino chain and are awaiting a response. If we receive one, we will publish it in full.

What do the regulations say?

It is worth distinguishing between two issues: what is unlawful and what is simply a poor, uncomfortable solution.

A shared toilet for employees is not prohibited in itself. The regulations do not explicitly require toilets to be divided into women’s and men’s facilities—the hygiene conditions and respect for privacy are more important. The situation is different in the case of changing rooms. Occupational health and safety regulations clearly provide for separate changing rooms for women and men if people of both sexes work at a given establishment. A shared changing room where people have to change clothes is, in light of these regulations, at the very least problematic—if that is indeed the case.

The second issue is cleaning. Whether employees from the meat department are required to clean the staff facilities depends on the scope of their duties and internal arrangements. If someone cleans “after hours,” without additional pay and outside their contract, this is no longer merely an organizational matter but something that may violate labour law. But again, this needs to be checked at the specific location rather than assumed in advance.

“Why do some people accept this?”

This sentence from the email is probably the saddest part of the entire report. The answer is usually simple: because they are afraid of losing their jobs. In small towns, where finding employment is difficult, an employee rarely has the strength to argue about a changing room or who washes the floor in the staff room. Silence does not mean consent—it means a lack of choice. And that is the essence of the problem, regardless of what the situation in Bolesławiec actually looks like.

If the report is confirmed, we are dealing with more than an “inconvenience.” It is a sign that in a company whose advertisements emphasize a family-friendly, warm image, someone failed to take care of the most basic thing: ensuring that people can change clothes without embarrassment and rest in a clean place that they do not have to scrub themselves at night.

And if it is not confirmed, it is all the more important to state that clearly. Unverified accusations also harm those who have done nothing wrong.

What we are asking the Dino chain

  • At the store on Starzyńskiego Street in Bolesławiec, are the toilet and changing room for employees shared by women and men?
  • Are employees from the meat department required to clean the staff facilities—and is this specified in their job descriptions or regulations?
  • Is this a practice used throughout the chain, or a solution specific to this outlet?
  • How does the company respond to reports of employee discomfort, and does it plan to make changes?

We are awaiting a response.