Employment contract and contract of mandate with one employer

In the current legal order, the current labor legislation allows the conclusion of only one employment contract with an employee. In some cases, however, it is possible to conclude a second contract with the employee. One of the more difficult issues is to assess whether signing two different contracts at the same time conflicts with each other. The most common contracts are the employment contract and the contract of mandate. In theory, it is possible to conclude an employment contract and a contract of mandate with one employer, but such an arrangement must be legal and should be justified by the actual needs of the employer and the employee. With help will come the accounting office Krakow, which provides specialized assistance in the field of labor law.

How are they different?

An employment contract is a type of contract in which the employer undertakes to employ an employee on a permanent basis or for a specified period of time, with the employee agreeing to perform work for the employer and under the employer’s direction. This agreement entails a number of obligations and rights for both parties. A contract of mandate, on the other hand, is a type of civil law contract in which the principal (employer) orders the performance of a specific service to a contractor (employee), with the principal having no influence on the manner of performance and no responsibility for the performance of the order. However, it should be remembered that civil law contracts are considered less favorable to the employee, since an employee hired under such a contract is not covered by the same rights and privileges as employees hired under an employment contract. It is always a good idea to seek advice and visit an accounting office or contact experts online.

In order to be able to sign an employment contract and an assignment contract with one employer, several conditions must be met:

• The work must indeed be different in nature and purpose. An employment contract should be for permanent or long-term employment, while a contract of mandate should be for the performance of a specific, one-time service or task.
• The employer must have a real need for an employee under both contracts. This must not be an attempt to circumvent labor laws or to avoid, for example, the obligation to pay dues associated with an employment contract.
• The employer must comply with regulations on civil law contracts. The contract of mandate must meet the requirements of the Civil Code and the Law on Business Activity, for example, it should be in writing, specify the parties, the subject of the mandate, the remuneration, the term of performance.
• The employer must comply with regulations regarding minimum wage, social and health insurance, vacation, etc. for a contracted employee.
• The employer must comply with regulations on occupational health and safety and against harassment and discrimination.

Entering into an employment contract and an assignment contract with the same employer can bring several benefits to both parties:

• Flexibility: An employment contract gives an employer the option to hire an employee on a permanent or longer-term basis, while a contract of mandate allows an employee to be hired for a specific, one-time project or task.
• Lack of liability: An assignment contract allows the employer to avoid liability for any damage caused by the employee during the assignment.
• Ability to use specialized knowledge: A contractual agreement allows an employer to hire a specialist in a particular field only for the time needed to complete a specific project or task.
• The employer can better match his needs with the employee’s qualifications and competence.