“We don’t have workplace bullying here” – until the first report comes in. From 5 November 2026, a new definition of workplace bullying will apply under the Labour Code. The requirement for conduct to be prolonged is being removed, the minimum compensation threshold is increasing, and the employer’s obligation is being reformulated as systematic prevention – covering prevention, detection, response, remediation and support.
If you run a technology company, manage a fast-growing team or are responsible for HR in an organisation with 50+ employees, this article is for you. You will learn exactly what the amendment changes, what risks arise from a lack of preparation and where to begin an internal review – before an employee or labour court does it for you.
Key terms to know before reading
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Workplace bullying (Article 94³ of the Labour Code) | Persistent harassment of an employee – repeated, recurring or continuous. From 5.11.2026, it will no longer be necessary to demonstrate that the conduct was “prolonged” as a separate condition. |
| Persistence | A characteristic of harassment: the conduct is repeated, recurring or continuous. Isolated incidents do not meet the definition. |
| Systematic prevention | The new standard for the employer’s obligation: a cycle of five functions – prevention, detection, response, remediation and support. |
| Compensation for non-material harm | A monetary payment for non-material harm (suffering, violation of dignity). From 5.11.2026, the minimum will be six times the minimum wage. |
| Internal investigation | An internal procedure for investigating a workplace bullying report – who receives it, who investigates it and who makes the decision. |
What the amendment to the Labour Code changes from 5 November 2026
The Act of 19 June 2026 amending the Labour Code and the Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) introduces three groups of changes that directly affect team management and internal documentation.
New definition of workplace bullying – without the requirement for prolonged conduct
Until now, Article 94³ of the Labour Code referred to “persistent and prolonged harassment or intimidation”. The new wording removes the requirement for prolonged conduct as a separate condition. Workplace bullying is now defined as persistent harassment of an employee, with persistence meaning that the harassment is repeated, recurring or continuous.
The Act provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of such conduct:
- Humiliation
- Unjustified criticism
- Demeaning or ridiculing
- Isolating an employee
- Obstructing work, communication or access to information needed to perform tasks
Harassment may occur regardless of the form of communication — in person, by email, via messaging platforms or by video conference (National Labour Inspectorate — new regulations).
What is not workplace bullying – statutory exclusions
The amendment expressly protects employers against abuse:
- Isolated conduct – even if it infringes personal rights, it does not meet the definition of workplace bullying (due to the lack of persistence)
- Justified criticism of an employee’s work, expressed in an appropriate manner, and holding an employee accountable for assigned tasks – do not constitute workplace bullying
This distinction is extremely important for line managers who hold their teams accountable for results and provide feedback. The law states explicitly: substantive criticism expressed in an appropriate manner is not harassment.
Higher minimum compensation and easier access to the courts
| Element | Until 4 November 2026 | From 5 November 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum compensation for non-material harm | 1 × minimum wage | 6 × minimum wage |
| Requirement to demonstrate a health disorder | Yes | No |
| Incorrect legal classification by the employee (workplace bullying instead of discrimination) | Risk of the claim being dismissed | The court will not dismiss the claim if the facts justify it on another legal basis |
With a minimum wage of PLN 4666 gross (2025), the minimum compensation is approximately PLN 28,000 – up from approximately PLN 4666. There is no statutory upper limit — the amount is determined by the court (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046).
The amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure means that an employee will not lose a case solely because the statement of claim referred to “workplace bullying” instead of “discrimination” or vice versa. The court will assess the facts and apply the appropriate legal basis.
Obligation to systematically prevent workplace bullying – the employer’s five functions
The amended Article 94³ § 1 of the Labour Code requires employers to systematically prevent workplace bullying. This is not a one-off implementation of a policy. It is a cycle of five functions that must operate continuously.
| Function | What it covers | How to prove it works |
|---|---|---|
| Prevention | Training, clear communication rules, a feedback culture | Training records, signed declarations, schedules |
| Detection | Reporting channel, team discussions, early warning signs | Channel documentation, records of discussions, workplace climate surveys |
| Response | Receiving a report, initiating an internal investigation | Minutes, designated individuals, deadlines |
| Remedial action | Changes to working conditions, consequences for the perpetrator, process improvements | Decisions, notes, organisational changes |
| Support for affected individuals | Psychological support, protection against retaliation, monitoring the situation | Records of support provided, follow-up |
The employer must set out the prevention rules in the workplace regulations or in separate regulations. The National Labour Inspectorate indicates that the procedure should regulate at least: how complaints are submitted, who is authorised to receive them, investigative activities, the composition of the committee, deadlines, preparation of minutes, document retention and notifying the reporting person (National Labour Inspectorate – new regulations).
What the minimum standard looks like depending on company size
The law does not establish separate thresholds for companies with different numbers of employees. However, the need for proportionate solutions follows from organisational logic:
| Company size | Minimum organisational standard |
|---|---|
| ~20 people | A designated person to receive reports + brief regulations describing the procedure |
| ~100 people | A formal procedure with an investigation committee, at least two reporting channels, regular training |
| ~500 people | A permanent compliance function, multiple reporting channels, measurable risk management, internal audits |
A document alone — even the best-written one – does not answer the question of whether the company actually performs these five functions. Data from the National Labour Inspectorate confirms the scale of the problem: 70% of employees at companies with an anti-bullying policy reported receiving no meaningful support from their employer (National Labour Inspectorate – workplace bullying is violence).
Risks for your company – financial, operational and reputational
Financial risk
The employer is liable for workplace bullying – regardless of who the direct perpetrator was. Costs may include:
- Compensation for non-material harm – a minimum of 6 × the minimum wage (approximately PLN 28,000 at the 2025 rate), with no upper limit
- Damages for actual financial loss – with no statutory minimum
- Court costs and legal fees
- Management and HR time spent on the case instead of developing the company
For context: in Supreme Court judgment I PK 165/13, compensation of PLN 30,000 (three times the claimant’s salary) was accepted – even before the threshold was raised (Supreme Court judgment I PK 165/13).
Operational risk
- A procedure exists on paper, but no one knows who formally receives a report – when the first real report comes in, the company has to improvise
- Managers, fearing allegations of workplace bullying, stop holding employees accountable for results and providing feedback – reducing management effectiveness
- A report concerns the direct supervisor of the person responsible for receiving reports within the company – creating a conflict of roles and an impartiality issue
Reputational risk
Publicity surrounding a case – whether internally or on employer review websites – damages employer branding and recruitment. In the IT and technology sector, where competition for specialists is fierce, this has a direct impact on the ability to build a team.
National Labour Inspectorate data — the scale of the problem
| Year | Complaints to the National Labour Inspectorate alleging workplace bullying | Found to be justified | Unfounded | Could not be determined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 278 | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 1 771 | 104 | 426 | 1 231 |
| 2024 (until 10.12) | 1 683 | — | — | — |
The low percentage of cases unequivocally classified as workplace bullying by inspectors does not mean that the problem does not exist. It means that it is difficult to prove without documentation – and that works both ways (National Labour Inspectorate – workplace bullying is violence).
Workplace bullying in remote and hybrid work – what to watch out for
The new definition explicitly states that harassment may occur regardless of the form of communication. For distributed teams, this means that isolation and exclusion from digital communication channels may meet the criteria for workplace bullying.
Examples of conduct that may be assessed as workplace bullying in a remote working environment include:
- Repeatedly omitting an employee from invitations to online meetings
- Deliberately excluding an employee from team channels on messaging platforms
- Systematically denying access to information needed for work
- Commenting publicly on performance during video conferences in a demeaning manner
One-off conduct or conduct resulting from justified work organisation does not meet the criteria. Each case is assessed individually – persistence matters, not an isolated incident (Labour Code – consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2025, item 277).
Anti-bullying procedure and whistleblower reporting channel
The Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) does not require the anti-bullying procedure to be combined with the whistleblower reporting channel – but neither does it prohibit this.
As a violation of an employee’s individual rights, workplace bullying generally falls outside the scope of the Whistleblower Protection Act. The exception is where workplace bullying constitutes retaliation against a person who previously submitted a whistleblower report – in which case it is covered by the protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau – whistleblower materials).
If you decide to use a shared technical channel, ensure that you have:
- Separate classification options for reports (workplace bullying vs. whistleblower report)
- Preliminary classification with documentation – specifying who decides which legal regime applies
- Separate follow-up actions – the anti-bullying procedure and the whistleblower procedure have different requirements
- Clear information for the reporting person about which legal regime protects them
GDPR in internal investigations – the minimum you need to establish
The obligation to prevent workplace bullying under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labour Code provides a basis for processing ordinary personal data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (legal obligation) or Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interest). Special categories of data (e.g. health data) require an additional legal basis under Article 9(2) GDPR.
| GDPR element | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Legal basis | Article 6(1)(c) or (f) GDPR for ordinary data; Article 9(2) GDPR for sensitive data |
| Confidentiality | Restricting access to individuals essential to the investigation (Article 5(1)(c) and Article 32 GDPR) |
| Information obligation | Article 13 or 14 GDPR in relation to all participants in the investigation |
| Retention | No longer than necessary, taking into account the limitation period for employment-related claims |
| Rights of the accused person | An opportunity to respond to the allegations — without disclosing the full report or witnesses’ details |
There is no uniform retention period for anti-bullying investigation documentation confirmed by the Polish Data Protection Authority. Establish one internally, taking into account the limitation periods for claims.
Where to start – an internal review in three steps
You do not need to write a new procedure from scratch. Start by reviewing what you already have – and check whether it will pass the test of the first real report.
Step 1: gather the documents
Gather in one place: the workplace regulations, collective bargaining agreement (if applicable), internal reporting rules and anti-bullying policy. Check whether they are consistent and whether the definition of workplace bullying reflects the new wording of the provision.
Step 2: answer three questions
Answer them in writing — identifying by name the person assigned to each role and their substitute:
- Who receives the report? (and what happens if the report concerns that person?)
- Who investigates the case? (impartiality – does that person report to the accused?)
- Who decides on the next steps? (and by what deadline?)
Step 3: list the gaps and assign a decision owner
Instead of starting by writing a new procedure, draw up a list of gaps – with a decision-maker in the company and a deadline for addressing each one. This enables you to act quickly and measure progress.
| Gap | Decision owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| No designated person to receive reports | CEO / Head of People | To be determined |
| The definition of workplace bullying in the regulations does not reflect the new wording | HR + legal adviser | Before 5.11.2026 |
| No procedure for reports concerning a management board member | Management board + legal adviser | To be determined |
| No manager training on the line between criticism and harassment | HR / L&D | To be determined |
The line between criticism and workplace bullying — what every manager should know
This is a genuine concern in performance-driven companies. A manager who fears allegations of workplace bullying may stop holding employees accountable for results – and the organisation loses efficiency.
The amendment provides a clear answer: holding employees accountable for their work or criticising it, where justified and expressed in an appropriate manner, does not constitute workplace bullying.
| Justified criticism | Risky conduct |
|---|---|
| Substantive feedback on work performance | Publicly commenting on delays during a team meeting in a ridiculing manner |
| Holding an employee accountable for specific, previously agreed objectives | Repeatedly and unjustifiably questioning an employee’s competence |
| Pointing out errors and proposing corrections | Isolating an employee from information needed to complete a task |
| A 1:1 conversation about unmet expectations | Systematically excluding an employee from project communications |
Training line managers on these boundaries – using specific scenarios from your company – is one of the first measures worth planning before 5 November 2026.
Legal support in implementing the new rules
Having your anti-bullying procedure reviewed by a legal adviser before the first real report – rather than while dealing with it — helps mitigate risks and clarify responsibilities.
The support we provide in this area includes:
- Audits of anti-bullying procedures – comparing existing documentation with the requirements of the amended Article 94³ of the Labour Code and identifying gaps and recommendations
- Implementation of an anti-bullying policy and reporting channel – designing a procedure tailored to the company’s size and operating model, including deciding whether to combine it with or separate it from the whistleblower channel
- Training for management staff – based on scenarios from your organisation: where criticism ends and harassment begins; how to respond to a report; how to document feedback
- Conducting internal investigations – providing an external, impartial committee or supporting an internal committee in handling the case
We combine employment law with the company’s business context – its ownership structure, growth plans and approach to team management. This ensures that staffing decisions are aligned with the organisation’s direction.
New definition of workplace bullying – what to do before 5 November 2026
The amendment to the Labour Code changes the rules of the game for every employer. The requirement for prolonged conduct is being removed, the minimum compensation threshold is increasing to six times the minimum wage, and the employer’s obligation covers five functions – from prevention to supporting affected individuals.
Do not wait for the first report. Gather the documents, answer three questions (who receives, who investigates, who decides) and list the gaps with deadlines for addressing them. If you need support in reviewing your procedure, training managers or designing an internal investigation – contact us.
Legal basis: Act of 19 June 2026 amending the Labour Code Act and the Code of Civil Procedure Act (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046), entering into force on 5 November 2026. This article is for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a legal adviser regarding individual matters.
Frequently asked questions
We already have an anti-bullying policy – do I need to rewrite it from scratch before 5 November?
No. Start with a review, not by writing a new procedure. Check whether the definition of workplace bullying in your documents reflects the new wording (persistent harassment – repeated, recurring or continuous, without the requirement for prolonged conduct). Then verify whether the procedure identifies by name: who receives a report, who investigates the case and who makes the decision. If these elements are in place, an update rather than a complete overhaul will be sufficient.
Will strictly holding employees accountable for results expose a manager to allegations of workplace bullying?
The Act expressly excludes justified criticism of an employee’s work, expressed in an appropriate manner, and holding an employee accountable for assigned tasks from the definition of workplace bullying. Substantive feedback on performance, provided in an appropriate manner (e.g. during a 1:1 conversation rather than through public ridicule), is not harassment. The problem begins where criticism is no longer justified, takes the form of humiliation or is repeatedly expressed in a manner that goes beyond substantive feedback.
How short can a pattern of conduct be and still be considered workplace bullying if there is no requirement for it to be prolonged?
The new definition requires persistence – meaning that the conduct must be repeated, recurring or continuous. Isolated conduct still falls outside the definition. The change means that a shorter but persistent pattern of conduct (e.g. consistently isolating an employee from information for several weeks) may meet the criteria — under the old definition, there would have been a dispute over whether it was “prolonged”. Each case is assessed individually.
Who should receive reports in a company with 60 employees and no compliance department?
Designate a specific person – for example, someone in HR or a trusted person – and describe this in the regulations. Arrange for a substitute in the event of absence or a conflict of interest (e.g. where the report concerns that person or their supervisor). A company of this size does not need an elaborate structure – a clearly defined role, a confidential reporting channel and a documented procedure will be sufficient.
Can I combine the workplace bullying reporting channel with the whistleblower channel?
Yes – the law neither prohibits nor requires this. If you decide to use a shared technical channel, ensure that there are separate options for classifying reports (workplace bullying vs. whistleblower report), documented preliminary classification, separate follow-up actions and clear information for the reporting person about which legal regime protects them. Workplace bullying generally does not fall under the Whistleblower Protection Act – unless it constitutes retaliation against a person who previously submitted a whistleblower report.
What consequences could a company face if a procedure exists but could not be applied in the first real case?
A procedure that does not work does not protect the employer. The labour court will assess whether the prevention of workplace bullying was systematic – that is, whether it included prevention, detection, response, remediation and support. A lack of evidence that the procedure was actually applied (training records, report documentation, decisions, remedial action) makes it more difficult to defend the employer’s position. From 5 November 2026, the minimum compensation will be six times the minimum wage – without the employee having to demonstrate a health disorder.
