The authors of this paper build on the hypothesis that rules regulating the relationship between employees and their employers where employee creates a subject matter protectable by an intellectual property right, can be characterised as belonging to no less than two branches of law. This twofold nature is clearly reflected in the divergence between the parties’ interests. The sensitive balance of interests in the employee-employer relationship is disturbed by the fact that the employee is at the same time the author or the inventor. The mentioned tension is further aggravated by the fact that certain aspects of the intellectual property rights – moral rights – are so vital that they may not be overcome by interests inherent in labour law. In the light of the intensifying mobility of employees and capital, the authors approach the topic not only from the perspective of substantive law, but also from the perspective of the conflict of laws. Within the latter field, the accessory connecting factor relying on the law applicable to employment contracts seems to be a widely accepted principle. However, here as well the tension between the two branches of law is strongly felt, in particular concerning the question of the law applicable to determining the original owner of an intellectual property right. Namely, compelling interests advocate in favour of depaçage from other issues, irrespective whether there is an inclination towards the principle of territoriality or to the principle of universality. The comparative legal analysis, limited in this paper to several European legal systems, is primarily aimed at probing the quality of provisions contained in Croatian statutes and in that sense the authors present certain conclusions de lege ferenda, both in relation to substantive law and conflict of laws.