By way of Ordo Iuris weblog,
In 2019, IKEA revealed an article on its firm intranet that imposed the ideological calls for of the LGBT motion on its workers.
In response, Janusz Komenda revealed a remark criticizing the announcement and included two Bible verses referring to gay practices.
Consequently, retailer administration determined to dismiss him. The implications prolonged to those that had “preferred” Komenda’s remark.
The Regional Court docket for Kraków-Nowa Huta dominated that his termination was illegal and ordered his reinstatement. IKEA appealed the choice. Nonetheless, the Regional Court docket in Kraków upheld the unique ruling, stating that the dismissal was unjustified. The courtroom reasoned that:
-
The office must be free from ideological indoctrination.
-
Komenda might have perceived IKEA’s actions as an assault on his values, prompting his response.
-
Employers should think about that a good portion of Poles are Christians and have the precise to uphold and defend their beliefs.
-
IKEA couldn’t declare that Komenda violated group requirements when, the truth is, the corporate itself had performed so.
The Supreme Court docket in the end refused to simply accept IKEA’s cassation attraction (resolution I PSK 62/24). It concurred with the decrease courts that requiring workers to take part in social initiatives as a matter of firm coverage exceeds the boundaries of employment duties. The Court docket emphasised that:
-
Participation in an employer’s social initiatives past job-related duties must be voluntary.
-
Expressing a selected worldview doesn’t justify an employer’s lack of confidence in an worker, particularly when that worldview is unrelated to job efficiency.
The Court docket’s opinion said:
“An employer might invite an worker to take part in an initiative aligned with the corporate’s values, however exerting any type of stress on the worker’s resolution is impermissible, as occurred on this case.
(…) If we outline an inclusive tradition as one which totally integrates various workers by means of illustration, openness, and equity, then the exclusion of the plaintiff from the worker group as a result of his non secular beliefs and differing worldview contradicts the appellant’s personal rhetoric of inclusivity.”
Paweł Szafraniec, of the Ordo Iuris Middle for Litigation Intervention, remarked:
“With this resolution, the Supreme Court docket strengthens the barrier towards huge firms imposing leftist ideology on their workers—disciplining and in the end firing those that refuse to adapt.
This goes past the correct scope of an employment relationship. The Court docket additionally reinforces the precise of Christians to defend their values, particularly in Poland, the place they make up a big a part of society. The Supreme Court docket’s ruling lastly closes Mr. Komenda’s case.”
