The Supreme Court confirmed that there are no legal obstacles to simultaneously working full-time in several places, but such work must be actually performed.  

The case concerned an attorney-at-law employed full-time at a law firm and at the same time four other full-time jobs with employers in the transport industry.  It was these four full-time jobs that ZUS challenged. All employment contracts were to be performed concurrently.  The employee was subject to a task-based working time system everywhere and worked remotely.   

The employers in the proceedings showed that the employment of the attorney was necessary and that her duties could be performed remotely and that the remuneration was paid. In one of these proceedings, however, the Supreme Court agreed with ZUS, pointing out that although there is no prohibition in the Labour Code against working in several jobs, there is no rational justification for assuming that the performance of work in such circumstances actually took place.
 

Find more in the PRO HR December 2023