Two days off annually due to force majeure may seem like a sensible benefit for emergencies. But in practice, this employee right is stirring increasing controversy. Companies are raising alarms: the regulation is vague, potentially open to abuse, and creates real organizational challenges. Some employers have begun to resist, leading to tension—and even refusals to grant leave. Has the legislator opened the door to workplace conflicts?
What the Law Says
According to Article 148¹ of the Polish Labor Code, an employee is entitled to two days or 16 hours off annually due to force majeure in urgent family matters caused by illness or accident that require the employee’s immediate presence. During this leave, the employee retains the right to 50% of their salary.
“This provision implements EU Directive 2019/1158 on work-life balance for parents and carers,” explains Anna Kamińska, attorney-at-law and partner at the Szuszczyński Kamińska law firm in Poznań, which specializes in labor law. “The amendment aimed to enhance employment flexibility and protect employees in crisis situations where their immediate presence in family life is undeniably necessary. But while the idea is sound, the regulation is written in a way that raises many practical concerns. In the end, the employer has no real way to verify whether the employee is abusing this right.”
Government Clarification
Due to the popularity of force majeure leave, the Ministry of Family, Labor, and Social Policy issued an official statement clarifying its scope:
“According to Article 148¹ of the Labor Code, an employee is not entitled to leave for every accident or illness—only for those occurring within the family, that are urgent, and require the employee’s immediate presence. There is no closed list of family matters justifying such leave. Furthermore, the article does not require employees to provide detailed information about the event. Additionally, under Article 5 of the EU’s GDPR (Regulation 2016/679), the principle of data minimization applies—meaning employers have no right to request specific information about the reason for the leave.”
Interestingly, the Ministry also confirmed that employees can request force majeure leave in advance, such as applying on Thursday for Friday and the following Monday. This has raised further doubts among legal experts, as such advance planning seems inconsistent with the concept of a “sudden emergency.”
Rising Employer Skepticism
Reports from the job market suggest that some employers are increasingly questioning the real motivations behind such leave requests. The main issue is the lack of documentation requirements and the ambiguous definition of “force majeure” in labor law.
“We’re seeing cases where the leave is used to extend a weekend or to handle personal matters—formally ‘urgent,’ but questionable in terms of legislative intent,” comments Mikołaj Zając, labor market expert and president of Conperio, a Polish consultancy specializing in absenteeism.
He adds that frequent and sudden absences—especially from key team members—cause real operational difficulties. The inability to anticipate absences hampers work planning and affects organizational efficiency. The challenge for employers is to manage absenteeism without violating employee rights, while ensuring the continuity of operations.
“We’re receiving reports from companies observing concerning instances of opportunistic use of this entitlement. Sometimes, time off is reported without proper justification, and the employer is left powerless,” says Zając. “As a result, some companies, sensing abuse of the law, have begun denying time off. This is a risky move, which could lead to legal disputes. However, the lack of clearer guidance is currently the biggest challenge in applying this provision.”
What’s Next for Force Majeure Leave?
Experts agree that while the provision serves important social goals, it requires adjustment. Without intervention, it could become a flashpoint for workplace conflict. Employers are calling for the Labor Ministry to issue formal guidelines, or for judicial interpretations to clarify the rules. Legislative changes are also being considered, including a requirement for employees to provide documentation of the emergency—perhaps within a few days of starting the leave.
Such a rule would help employers better assess the legitimacy of the absence while safeguarding employees’ rights in genuine crisis situations.
Source: Manager+
