For several weeks, an employee has not been receiving the information they need to do their job. They are being left out of team discussions. They identify their manager as the source of the problem. They open the anti-bullying procedure and see: “reports are accepted by the direct manager".
This is not a hypothetical scenario. It is a situation that recurs in technology, SaaS, and service companies — wherever teams have flat structures, HR consists of one person, and the anti-bullying procedure was created once and has not been updated since.
The amendment to the Labour Code of 19 June 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) enters into force on 5 November 2026 and changes the rules of the game: employers will have to demonstrate that they have taken preventive measures against workplace bullying. A passive approach — “we have a document, it’s stored on the drive" — will no longer be enough.
In this article, I will show you how to identify the most common gap in anti-bullying procedures and the four organisational decisions you need to make before the first report is submitted.
Key terms before you continue
| Term | What it means in the context of this article |
|---|---|
| Anti-bullying procedure | A company’s internal rules specifying how to report and handle a workplace bullying case — who receives the report, who gathers information, and who decides on the next steps |
| 2026 Labour Code amendment | The Act of 19 June 2026 amending the Labour Code and the Code of Civil Procedure — it expands employers’ obligations to include the prevention, detection, response, and remediation of workplace bullying (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) |
| Need-to-know principle | Restricting access to information about a report exclusively to those who need to know it — everyone else should not even know that a report has been submitted |
| Anti-bullying committee | A team of people conducting an investigation — it may be internal, external, or mixed; the Labour Code does not prescribe its composition or form |
| Burden of proof | The amendment provides that once an employee has made workplace bullying plausible, the employer will have to demonstrate that no bullying occurred and that preventive measures were taken (Sejm Paper No. 2289) |
Why an anti-bullying procedure fails when it is needed most
Most anti-bullying procedures work properly in one scenario: an employee reports a problem involving a colleague, their manager receives the report, and HR handles the case. The process is simple and logical.
The problem arises when the report concerns the person responsible for handling that process.
Three scenarios in which the procedure stops working
| Scenario | Who is identified as the source of the problem | Why the procedure does not work |
|---|---|---|
| A | The employee’s direct manager | The procedure directs the report to the person it concerns |
| B | The HR representative responsible for conducting investigations | HR cannot handle a case in which it is a party |
| C | The person designated as the “substitute" in the procedure, who reports to the person named in the complaint | A substitute formally exists, but there is no genuine impartiality |
Each of these scenarios leads to the same outcome: the employee has no credible reporting route. And the lack of a credible reporting route means no reports — which companies mistakenly interpret as the absence of a problem.
Experience in designing reporting channels in other areas (e.g. whistleblowing procedures) confirms this principle directly: the people responsible for receiving reports cannot be the people whom the report may concern, their subordinates, or people connected with the disputed decision. Any retaliation against the reporting person undermines the very purpose of the channel — no one will use it.
What the 2026 Labour Code amendment changes
The Act of 19 June 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) enters into force on 5 November 2026. Employers have 6 months from that date — that is, until 5 May 2027 — to adapt their workplace regulations or issue separate regulations defining preventive rules and procedures (National Labour Inspectorate — new regulations).
Changes affecting the anti-bullying procedure
| Change | Impact on the employer |
|---|---|
| Removal of the requirement that workplace bullying be “long-term" — the requirement of “persistence" remains (repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct) | There is no need to wait for months before conduct can be classified as workplace bullying |
| Expansion of the employer’s obligations to include prevention, detection, response, remedial action, and support for victims | A procedure that exists only “on paper" will not be enough — what matters is whether it actually works |
| Planned shift of the burden of proof to the employer once an employee has made workplace bullying plausible | The employer will have to demonstrate that genuine preventive measures were taken — including that the reporting procedure was accessible and credible |
| Extension of the definition to conduct involving instructing or encouraging others to engage in workplace bullying | Liability may apply not only to the person directly engaging in bullying, but also to someone who tolerated or ordered such conduct |
Source: Sejm Paper No. 2289, Civil Service website — new regulations
Two deadlines that must not be confused
- 5 November 2026 — the substantive workplace bullying provisions take effect. From that date, the new definition and new obligations are binding.
- 5 May 2027 — the deadline for formally adapting workplace regulations or issuing separate regulations. This is a deadline for documents, not for beginning to take action.
If a report is submitted on 6 November 2026 and your procedure does not provide an alternative route, the argument that “you have until May 2027" will not protect you.
Four decisions you need to make before the first report
The Labour Code does not prescribe a specific model for an anti-bullying committee or statutory grounds for excluding its members (Labour Code, Journal of Laws 2025, item 277). This means that responsibility for designing a procedure that works rests with you.
Below are four organisational decisions that determine whether the procedure will work in a difficult scenario.
Decision 1: who takes over the case when the report concerns the person receiving reports
Your procedure must specify an alternative reporting channel — by name or role. A provision stating that “in the event of a conflict of interest, the report shall be referred to another person" is not enough. You need to specify exactly who that person is.
How to approach this depending on the size of the company:
| Company size | Solution |
|---|---|
| Company with 20–50 employees and a one-person HR function | Designate a management board member or external lawyer as the alternative channel |
| Company with 50–150 employees | Appoint a second person in HR or someone from another department who is independent of the person named in the report |
| Company with 150+ employees | Consider an external ad hoc committee appointed by an employer’s order — the Labour Code permits this |
Experience with whistleblowing procedures shows that the reporting channel should be proportionate to the size of the organisation. In smaller companies, reports may be submitted on paper or in person — an electronic channel is not always required. What matters is that at least one route ensures confidentiality.
Decision 2: who gathers information and who decides on the next steps
These are two separate stages and should be handled by different people or teams.
- Information-gathering stage — interviews with the people involved, document analysis, and fact-finding. This stage is conducted by a committee or designated person.
- Decision-making stage — based on the information gathered, a decision is made on further action: implementing changes, mediation, disciplinary consequences, or further proceedings. The decision is made by a body higher in the hierarchy.
A model drawn from compliance practice: the responsible unit analyses reports, but the management board decides on further measures. When a report concerns a management board member, the decision is made by the supervisory board. The same model can be applied to an anti-bullying procedure.
The purpose of the investigation is not to make a definitive determination as to whether workplace bullying occurred. Its purpose is to make the right decisions based on the information gathered.
Decision 3: who has access to information about the report
The need-to-know principle: the personal data of those involved in the report should be disclosed only to people for whom it is necessary to handle the case. All such persons must be bound by confidentiality.
What to include in the procedure:
- Who gathers the information and where it is stored
- Who has access to the investigation records
- How you restrict the circulation of information — e.g. a separate location for documents, restricted access to the folder, and no emailing the contents of the report to people who are not involved
- How long you retain the records — the Labour Code does not specify a retention period for anti-bullying files, but you should establish one that takes into account the limitation periods for claims and evidentiary obligations (GDPR — EUR-Lex)
Decision 4: who cannot handle the case — recusal rules
The Labour Code does not regulate the grounds for excluding members of an anti-bullying committee. You must define them yourself in your internal regulations.
Minimum recusal rules worth including in the procedure:
- The person identified as the perpetrator cannot participate in the proceedings
- A manager or subordinate of either party cannot handle the case
- A person connected with the parties (e.g. through a personal relationship or shared project) must disclose the conflict of interest
- A request for recusal is considered by a person independent of the committee
- The recusal decision is documented
Official internal procedures published by public bodies provide for precisely such mechanisms (Rules of Procedure of the Anti-Bullying Committee — gov.pl).
Contact us — we will help you review your anti-bullying procedure in light of the amendment.
Anti-bullying procedure and whistleblowing channel — are they the same system?
A common question: can workplace bullying be reported through a whistleblowing channel?
There is no straightforward answer. The Act of 14 June 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) covers a list of legal violations. Workplace bullying, as a violation of employment law, is not automatically included in that list — it may be reported under the Act if:
- Workplace bullying is expressly included in Article 3 of the Whistleblower Protection Act
- The conduct described violates another rule on the statutory list (e.g. the prohibition of discrimination)
- The employer has voluntarily extended its internal procedure to include reports of workplace bullying
What this means for your company:
| Scenario | What to do |
|---|---|
| You have a separate whistleblowing channel and a separate anti-bullying procedure | Check that reports are not being routed into two disconnected systems — employees should know which route to follow |
| You have one channel for all reports | Make sure it provides a comparable level of protection for the reporting person and that those handling reports know how to classify them |
| You do not yet have any reporting channel | Consider an integrated system, but with a clear distinction between whistleblower reports and workplace bullying reports |
A lack of distinction increases the risk of misclassification and the improper application of protection against retaliation (gov.pl — whistleblower questions and answers).
Checklist: what to review in your anti-bullying procedure
Before you start updating your documents, answer the questions below. If the answer to any of them is “no" or “I don’t know", that is where you should start.
| No. | Question | Yes / No |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Does the procedure specify an alternative reporting channel for cases involving a manager or HR? | |
| 2 | Is the substitute identified by name or role? | |
| 3 | Does the procedure define recusal rules for people connected with the parties? | |
| 4 | Is the information-gathering stage separate from the stage at which decisions on further action are made? | |
| 5 | Does the procedure describe the flow of information: who has access, where records are stored, and how you implement the need-to-know principle? | |
| 6 | Does the team know what reporting routes are available — and where to find them (intranet, onboarding materials, workplace regulations)? | |
| 7 | Do managers know what to do during the first 48 hours after receiving a report concerning their manager? | |
| 8 | Is the procedure consistent with the whistleblowing channel — and do employees know which route to follow? | |
| 9 | Does the procedure address GDPR requirements: the legal basis for processing, record retention, and the rights of the person named in the report? | |
| 10 | Does the procedure comply with the 2026 Labour Code amendment — prevention, detection, response, and remedial action? |
Penalties — what you risk if the procedure does not work
Article 94³ § 1 of the Labour Code imposes an obligation to prevent workplace bullying, but does not establish a separate fine for failing to have a formal procedure (Labour Code, Journal of Laws 2025, item 277). This does not mean, however, that the absence of a procedure has no consequences.
| Type of risk | What it involves |
|---|---|
| Evidentiary risk | The absence of a procedure makes it more difficult for the employer to demonstrate that it took steps to prevent workplace bullying — after the amendment, the employer will have to prove that preventive measures were taken |
| Compensation for harm to health | Article 94³ § 3 of the Labour Code — an employee who has suffered harm to their health as a result of workplace bullying may claim compensation |
| Damages | Article 94³ § 4 of the Labour Code — no less than the minimum wage where an employee has experienced workplace bullying or terminated their employment contract as a result of it |
| Escalation outside the company | When an employee has no credible internal route — they file a complaint with the National Labour Inspectorate or bring a claim before an employment court |
| Reputational risk and staff turnover | No trust in the procedure = no reports = a false sense of security. Employees leave without reporting the reason |
By comparison, in the area of whistleblowing procedures, failure to implement a procedure is classified as an administrative offence and is punishable. There is no such automatic penalty for an anti-bullying procedure — but the consequences in legal proceedings may be far more serious.
Review your procedure — before an inspector or court does
The 2026 Labour Code amendment changes the logic of employer liability. Having a document is not enough. You must demonstrate that the procedure actually worked — that the employee had a genuine opportunity to submit a report, that the report reached an impartial person, that the information did not leak, and that decisions were made based on the facts gathered.
If your procedure has only one reporting route and does not provide for a recusal mechanism, it stops working precisely when it is needed most.
The four decisions described in this article — who takes over the case, who gathers information, who has access to it, and who decides on the next steps — are the minimum you should establish before 5 November 2026.
If you want to check whether your anti-bullying procedure will stand up to scrutiny under the new regulations — contact us. We will help you identify gaps and prepare the documents before the first report is submitted.
Frequently asked questions
Who in the company should take over the case if the report concerns a manager or management board member?
The procedure should specify an alternative channel — by name or role. In companies with a one-person HR function, this may be a management board member, someone from another department, or an external lawyer. When a report concerns a management board member, the decision on further action should be made by the supervisory board or a person independent of the management board. The Labour Code does not prescribe a model — but failing to designate a substitute brings the case to a standstill at the report intake stage.
Do I need an external reporting channel, or is it enough to designate another person within the organisation?
The Labour Code does not require an external channel. It is enough to designate another person within the company, provided that they are independent of the person named in the report. In companies with 20–50 employees, where reporting lines limit the available choices, it is worth considering an external ad hoc committee appointed by an employer’s order — the National Labour Inspectorate permits this solution (National Labour Inspectorate — Looking After Employees and Employers).
By when do I need to adapt my documents to the 2026 Labour Code amendment?
The substantive provisions enter into force on 5 November 2026 — from that date, the new definition of workplace bullying and the expanded employer obligations apply. You have until 5 May 2027 to formally adapt your workplace regulations. But if a report is submitted in November 2026 and your procedure does not work, the deadline for updating your documents will not protect you.
Can I combine the anti-bullying procedure with the whistleblowing channel?
Yes, provided that the channel offers a comparable level of protection for the reporting person and that you clearly distinguish between whistleblower reports and workplace bullying reports. Workplace bullying is not automatically covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act — it may fall within its scope if the employer has voluntarily extended the procedure or if the conduct violates another rule included in the Act’s list. A lack of distinction increases the risk of misclassification.
How should I document the proceedings so that I can defend the company before the National Labour Inspectorate or in court without violating the GDPR?
The legal basis for processing personal data in anti-bullying proceedings is Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (the legal obligation under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labour Code) or Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (the employer’s legitimate interest). If the records contain health data, you need an additional basis under Article 9(2) GDPR. Establish a retention period that takes into account the limitation periods for claims. Restrict access to the records to those handling the case and bind them to confidentiality (GDPR — EUR-Lex).
What should I do if I cannot determine whether workplace bullying occurred?
The purpose of an investigation is not to deliver a verdict. Its purpose is to gather information and make the right decisions — e.g. changing how work is organised, mediation, monitoring the situation, or disciplinary consequences. Separate the fact-finding stage from the decision-making stage. If the information gathered does not allow for a definitive determination, document this and take action proportionate to what you have been able to establish.