Your company has remote work rules, an anti-mobbing policy and a whistleblowing procedure. Everything has been signed, archived and is ready to sit on the shelf. Now for an honest question: if a whistleblower report came in today or a National Labour Inspectorate inspector asked how you actually set the rules for working with B2B contractors — would your team’s answer match what those documents say?
The reform of the National Labour Inspectorate has been in force since 8 July 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 473). The amended definition of mobbing entered into force under the Act of 19 June 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046). The requirement to implement a whistleblowing procedure for entities employing at least 50 people has applied since 25 September 2024 (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928).
All these regulations have one thing in common: inspectors and courts assess actual practice, not declarations. Companies do not lose because they lack a policy — they lose because of the disconnect between what they declare on paper and how their managers actually operate.
In this article, I will explain where this disconnect comes from, what risks it creates and how to close the gap — step by step, without bringing your business to a standstill.
Key terms you need to know
Before we move on to the risks and recommendations, here are a few terms used in this article:
| Term | What it means for your company |
|---|---|
| Employment relationship (Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code) | Work performed under an employer’s direction, at a place and time designated by the employer, in return for remuneration. If a B2B arrangement meets these conditions, it may be deemed an employment relationship regardless of what the contract is called |
| Administrative decision by the National Labour Inspectorate | Since 8 July 2026, a district labour inspector may issue a decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship. An appeal to a labour court suspends its enforcement |
| Internal reporting procedure (whistleblowers) | A mandatory system enabling employees and contractors to report breaches of law. It includes a reporting channel, a person or body responsible for handling reports and a follow-up process |
| Mobbing (new definition, 2026) | Persistent harassment — the simplified definition no longer requires proof that the conduct was prolonged or that it caused a specific health outcome. Conduct is assessed from the perspective of the so-called reasonable victim model |
| HR compliance | Compliance of employment practices with applicable laws — from documentation and working time to the employment model, anti-mobbing policies and whistleblowing procedures |
Why documents without proper implementation do not protect your company
Many organisations treat HR compliance as a set of documents to be signed. Remote work rules — check. Anti-mobbing policy — check. Whistleblowing procedure — check. The problem is that these documents sit in a drawer while the company operates differently in practice.
Where the disconnect comes from
- Managers are unfamiliar with the procedures. The rules state that remote work requires the scope of tasks to be agreed. The manager says: “work from home however you like”. If a dispute arises over working time or availability, the company has no evidence that the terms were agreed
- Documents are drafted as a one-off exercise. The whistleblowing procedure was prepared in September 2024. Since then, the company has changed its structure, hired 30 new people and introduced a new billing model. The procedure has not kept pace
- Each department operates differently. In one team, the manager sets the schedule and requires attendance from 9:00 to 17:00. In another, the B2B contractor organises their own work. Both have identical contracts. The difference lies in practice, not in the documents
- There is no verification mechanism. No one checks whether the rules described in the policies reflect day-to-day work. Internal audits, if they exist at all, do not cover employment matters
What an inspection actually assesses
A National Labour Inspectorate inspector, a labour court and an investor conducting due diligence all look at the same thing: whether actual practice matches the declarations. An inspection is not about checking whether you have a document. It involves comparing that document with managers’ answers, working time records, email correspondence, and reporting and billing arrangements.
According to the Chief Labour Inspector’s report for 2025, more than 57,000 inspections were carried out, 48,677 civil-law contracts were examined and 2,119 of them were challenged as having been concluded under conditions characteristic of an employment relationship.
2026 National Labour Inspectorate reform — what has changed and what it means for employers
The Act of 11 March 2026 amending the National Labour Inspectorate Act (Journal of Laws 2026, item 473) was signed by the President on 2 April 2026 and published on 7 April 2026. The main provisions have been in force since 8 July 2026 (Public Employment Services).
This is not a bill or an announcement. It is the law currently in force.
New powers of district labour inspectors
Since 8 July 2026, a district labour inspector may issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship if they determine that the actual working arrangement meets the criteria set out in Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code (Journal of Laws 2025, item 277).
The procedure consists of two stages:
- The inspector issues an order requiring the infringement to be remedied
- If the order is not complied with, the inspector may apply for a decision to be issued
Before the decision is issued, the parties may agree on a solution — either entering into an employment contract or changing the terms of their working arrangement. The decision may be appealed to a labour court, and filing an appeal suspends enforcement of the decision until the court has ruled (gov.pl).
What the inspector assesses — indicators of subordination
The National Labour Inspectorate identifies the following indicators that may point to the existence of an employment relationship:
| Indicator | What the inspector looks at |
|---|---|
| Day-to-day instructions | Whether the contractor receives binding instructions on how tasks are to be performed |
| Working time | Whether the company sets a fixed schedule, working hours or on-call duties |
| Place of work | Whether the company requires work from an office, the use of specific equipment or access via VPN |
| Personal performance | Whether the contractor may appoint a substitute or must always perform the work personally |
| Integration into the organisation | Whether the contractor attends employee meetings, uses internal systems or requests “leave” |
| Lack of business independence | Whether the contractor serves only one client and bears no business risk |
In its judgment in case III USK 324/23, the Supreme Court emphasised the need to assess all the circumstances as a whole, rather than any single factor. This means that merely issuing invoices or being registered in CEIDG does not determine the nature of the working arrangement.
Financial consequences of a B2B model being challenged
If a civil-law contract is challenged as a sham arrangement, the consequences may include:
- Outstanding ZUS social security contributions — including pension, disability, health and accident insurance contributions, as well as Labour Fund and Guaranteed Employee Benefits Fund contributions for the period of the working arrangement
- Outstanding PIT advance payments — the employer, as the withholding agent, is liable for tax that was not withheld
- Late-payment interest — the Tax Ordinance requires interest to be paid on arrears (podatki.gov.pl)
- Civil claims — a person reclassified as an employee may claim annual leave, overtime pay, cash equivalents and severance payments
- National Labour Inspectorate sanctions — financial penalties and fines for offences against employee rights
The scale of the costs depends on the duration of the working arrangement, the amounts paid and the contractor’s insurance status. For long-term B2B contracts involving high rates, the amounts may run into hundreds of thousands of zlotys.
Whistleblowing, mobbing and discrimination — three areas where practice diverges from procedure
A whistleblowing procedure that will not survive the first report
The Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) provides for criminal sanctions for specific infringements in Articles 54–58:
| Infringement | Sanction |
|---|---|
| Preventing or obstructing a report (Article 54) | A fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to 3 years |
| Retaliation against a whistleblower (Article 55) | Up to 2 years; up to 3 years if persistent |
| Disclosure of a whistleblower’s identity (Article 56) | Imprisonment for up to one year |
| No reporting procedure or a defective procedure (Article 58) | A fine (as a petty offence: PLN 20–5,000 under Article 24 § 1 of the Petty Offences Code) |
The fine for failing to implement a procedure may seem low. But the real risk is not the amount of the fine. It is what happens when an employee submits a report and the company does not know what to do with it.
A typical scenario: the procedure exists, but employees do not know where to submit a report. The manager does not understand their role. No one has been appointed to handle reports. There is no follow-up process. There is no deadline for providing feedback (the Act requires it within 3 months). The result: the company exposes itself to an allegation of preventing a report — which falls under Article 54 and carries a penalty of up to 3 years’ imprisonment.
New definition of mobbing — lower threshold, higher risk
The Act of 19 June 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) simplified the definition of mobbing. The new definition is based on “persistent harassment” and no longer requires proof of:
- Prolonged conduct
- A diminished assessment of professional competence
- Humiliation or isolation
- A specific health outcome
Conduct is now assessed from the perspective of the so-called reasonable victim model (gov.pl). The burden of proof in mobbing cases still rests with the employee, but the simplified definition lowers the formal threshold for bringing a claim.
The position is different in discrimination cases: Article 18³b § 1 of the Labour Code requires the employer to demonstrate objective reasons once the employee has established a prima facie case of unequal treatment.
The obligation to prevent mobbing remains set out in Article 94(2b) of the Labour Code. An anti-mobbing policy alone does not prove that this obligation has been fulfilled. What matters is how the company actually responds: who receives the report, how it is documented, who is informed and what action is taken.
What these three areas have in common
In all three cases — whistleblowing, mobbing and discrimination — the risk does not arise from the absence of a document. It arises because:
- Managers do not know how to respond to a conflict, allegation or report
- The company does not have a one-page response process: who receives the report → how it is documented → who is informed → how communication with the parties concerned is handled
- The procedures function as separate, “bolted-on” documents rather than as a single coherent system
HR compliance risk map — what to check and in what order
You do not have to analyse the entire organisation at once. Start with the highest-risk areas and gradually expand the scope. Below is a prioritised risk map to help you determine the order in which to act.
Highest-priority risks
| Risk | Category | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Disconnect between documentation and managers’ actual practices | Legal | Compare 5 HR processes (onboarding, changes to terms, working time, remote work and offboarding) with the applicable policies. Record every discrepancy |
| Employment model not aligned with how the work is performed | Legal | For every person on a B2B or mandate contract, check: who gives instructions, who sets the hours and place of work, and who monitors the results |
| Whistleblowing procedure without a follow-up process | Operational | Test it with a sample scenario: does the employee know where to report? Who receives the report? How quickly does the company respond? |
| No procedure for responding to a conflict or allegation of mobbing | Legal | Check whether there is a documented process specifying who receives the report, how it is documented and who is informed |
| Red flags ahead of due diligence | Financial | Conduct pre-due diligence of employment matters: B2B arrangements under the conditions described in Article 22 of the Labour Code, employee monitoring documentation and GDPR information obligations towards employees |
Medium-priority risks
| Risk | Category | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Inconsistent management decisions | Operational | Whether changes to terms, appraisals, terminations and work organisation depend on the individual making the decision or on a consistent standard |
| Risks only coming to light during a “crisis” | Reputational | Whether the company has a mechanism for detecting HR problems early or only responds to a complaint, departure or inspection |
| Standards dependent on the knowledge of individual HR staff | Operational | Whether staff turnover in HR or the departure of one person results in the loss of knowledge about procedures and practices |
How to close the gap — implementation recommendations
Below are specific steps, ranging from actions you need to take now and those you should plan to measures that will put the system in order for the future.
Actions you need to take now
- Take stock of employment and contracting arrangements. For every person on a B2B or mandate contract, answer three questions: who gives instructions? Who sets the working hours and place of work? Who monitors the results? Flag cases that require either a change to the contract or a change in practice
- Compare HR processes with the documents. Select at least 5 processes (onboarding, changes to terms, working time, remote work and offboarding) and compare what the policies say with what managers actually do. Every discrepancy is a specific risk that needs to be addressed
- Create a risk map with owners and deadlines. Assign a responsible person and a remediation deadline to every identified risk. Without an owner, the risk remains merely an item on paper
- Test the whistleblowing procedure. Run a sample scenario: does the employee know where to report? Who receives the report? How quickly is feedback provided? How are follow-up actions documented?
- Create a one-page conflict response process. Specify: who receives a report of mobbing or unequal treatment → how it is documented → who is informed → how communication with the parties concerned is handled. One page. No theory
Actions you should plan
- Train managers on the highest-risk decisions. Identify 5–6 decisions that create the greatest risk (changes to terms, termination, responding to conflict, organising remote work and employee appraisals) and give managers checklists, not legal provisions. Supervisors monitor compliance with the rules in day-to-day work — they need to know what to look out for
- Update documents in stages. Start with the areas identified as critical in the risk map. Then move on to lower-priority templates and policies. Do not try to put everything in order at once
- Conduct pre-due diligence before a funding round. Prepare a list of explanations for the investor instead of waiting for questions from the data room. The biggest red flags in due diligence are: B2B work performed under the conditions described in Article 22 of the Labour Code, inconsistencies between contracts and actual practice, irregularities in employee monitoring documentation (Personal Data Protection Office) and retention of candidate data without a legal basis (Personal Data Protection Office)
Actions to put the system in order
- Carry out regular HR compliance reviews. Schedule a review every 6–12 months or after every significant increase in headcount. Procedures should be updated whenever regulations, technology or organisational strategy changes — a one-off implementation is not enough. Use a short checklist, not a lengthy report
- Obtain confirmation that employees are familiar with the procedures. Every new employee and contractor should confirm that they are familiar with the rules (for example, by signing an appropriate document). Regular training — particularly during onboarding — is part of implementation, not a formality
How we can help you
The disconnect between documentation and practice cannot be fixed with a single document. It requires diagnosis, prioritisation and the implementation of changes in a way that does not bring the business to a standstill.
Our HR compliance support consists of three stages:
Stage 1 — Diagnosis and risk map. We analyse employment arrangements, HR processes and documentation. We compare declarations with actual practice. The result is a prioritised risk map with estimated consequences — not a report to be filed away, but a list of decisions that need to be made.
Stage 2 — Audit of documents and practices with a remediation plan. We review contracts, workplace rules, policies and procedures. We identify what needs to be amended, what needs to be replaced and what can remain unchanged. The remediation plan includes specific steps, deadlines and owners.
Stage 3 — Implementation of standards and checklists, and management training. We prepare checklists for managers, train them on the highest-risk decisions and help implement regular reviews. The result: a single standard across the entire organisation and restored management control over employment-related risks.
We combine employment law with the business context — ownership structure, growth plans and IP — ensuring that staffing decisions are aligned with the company’s direction.
HR compliance in 2026 — put your practices in order before an inspection does it for you
The National Labour Inspectorate reform is in force. The definition of mobbing has been simplified. The requirement to implement a whistleblowing procedure has applied for almost two years. All these regulations assess one thing: whether your company operates as it claims in its documents.
The disconnect between procedures and practice is a risk that grows with every month that passes without a review. You do not need to analyse the entire organisation at once — simply start with the highest-risk areas and gradually expand the scope.
If you need support with diagnosing risks, auditing documents and practices or preparing your company for a National Labour Inspectorate inspection and due diligence — contact us. We will help you close the gap between what is on paper and what happens in reality.
Frequently asked questions
Will my B2B contracts withstand an inspection following the National Labour Inspectorate reform, and how can I check?
Since 8 July 2026, a district labour inspector may issue a decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship. The test is based on Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code and involves assessing all the circumstances as a whole: subordination, working time and place, personal performance and integration into the organisation. This requires comparing the terms of the contract with how the arrangement actually works — who gives instructions, who sets the schedule and whether the contractor may appoint a substitute. If the arrangement resembles employment in practice, the name of the contract and the issuing of invoices will not change its legal classification.
I have workplace rules and policies — why do I need a review of actual practices?
The National Labour Inspectorate, labour courts and investors conducting due diligence assess whether documents reflect reality. Remote work rules that do not match how work is organised within the company do not protect it against claims. An anti-mobbing policy that managers are unfamiliar with does not prove compliance with the obligation under Article 94(2b) of the Labour Code. A review of actual practices identifies discrepancies before an inspector, court or investor does.
What happens if a whistleblower report comes in today — who will handle it?
The Whistleblower Protection Act requires feedback to be provided within 3 months of a report. If the company has not appointed a person or body to handle reports and has no reporting channel or follow-up process, it risks an allegation of preventing a report (Article 54 of the Act — up to 3 years’ imprisonment). Merely having a written procedure is not enough — you need to test whether the system works: whether employees know where to report, who receives the report and what happens next.
Where should I start if I do not have the budget to put all of HR in order at once?
Start by taking stock of employment arrangements (B2B contracts, mandate contracts and employment contracts) and comparing 5 HR processes with the relevant documents. Flag discrepancies and assign owners and remediation deadlines. This does not require a large budget — it requires a few hours of work with managers and HR. Update documents in stages: begin with the highest-risk areas, then address the rest.
Who is liable if a manager makes a poor employment decision?
Responsibility is divided across three levels: the supervisor monitors compliance with the rules in day-to-day work, HR communicates the procedures and enforces compliance, and management takes action in the event of infringements. In litigation or during a National Labour Inspectorate inspection, the company, as the employer, is liable for its managers’ decisions. That is why training managers on the highest-risk decisions — and giving them checklists — reduces the risk of errors that affect the entire organisation.
Will putting procedures in order slow the company down?
Putting procedures in order does not mean “setting decisions in stone”. It means establishing a single standard instead of having several different practices across different departments. A manager with a checklist makes decisions faster than one who has to ask HR or a lawyer every time. The goal is a system that supports scaling — not one that obstructs it.
