Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo 16 (2015)

URI dla tej Kolekcjihttp://repozytorium.ur.edu.pl/handle/item/1244

Przeglądaj

Przeglądanie Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego. Seria Prawnicza. Prawo 16 (2015) według Temat "kontrola osobista"

Wpisz kilka pierwszych liter i kliknij przycisk Przeglądaj
Aktualnie wyświetlane 1 - 1 z 1
  • Obrazek miniatury
    Pozycja
    O DOPUSZCZALNOŚCI PRZEPROWADZANIA KONTROLI OSOBISTEJ RAZ JESZCZE
    (2015-10-16) Smolski, Marcin
    In this article the author examines the judgment of the Supreme Court of 13.04.1972 r., which also today is a source of guidance personal inspection staff. As a condition of the legality of its conduct, the Supreme Court pointed out, inter alia, that the execution should take place in consultation with the representative of the crew. The author pays attention to emerging contemporary views of interpreting used in the above judgment the phrase “in consultation” as a process of consultation only. Author polemicizes of such standpoint. Draws attention to the need to analyze the legal status which the Supreme Court relied on issuing the ruling. It notes that the Supreme Court pointed out the rules of procedure as the appropriate procedure in-house, in which were placed regulations on personal checks of employees. Emphasizes that another mode of its adoption in force at the time of issuance of the above judgments, and other contemporary spaces, which is important for understanding the differences in meaning of the concept “in concert”. The author analyzes the state of the law at the time of the judgment in question, cited the comments of the doctrine of labor law in this period, the then explains the meaning of ”in concert”, indicates the mode of the conclusion of the working rules and entities involved in this process. The author concludes that by placing the control of employees working in the rules of used by the Supreme Court of the phrase “in consultation” could not be understood in the purely consultation, as indeed was the nature of a firm and binding voice belonged to the wider workers’ representation. Emphasizes that the contemporary use of the term “in agreement” can be understood as consultation with the assumption that the procedure checks will be placed precisely in the rules of work and in the workplace, there are trade unions which is agreed rules (otherwise the rules of procedure is a unilateral act in-house issued by the employer).