Your anti-bullying policy has been sitting on the intranet since 2021. No one has read it, HR does not know how to apply it, and managers do not even know it exists. Tomorrow, HR receives its first serious complaint. What do you do?
Most companies, especially in IT, SaaS, and scale-ups, have some kind of document: a policy, rules, or a set of principles. The problem is that a document is not a response model. According to research by the Safe at Work Coalition, 39% of employees do not know whether their company has an anti-bullying procedure, and only 29% say their company takes concrete action. Meanwhile, CBOS data from 2024 show that 40% of working people experienced at least one form of improper treatment in the past 5 years. In 2024, the National Labour Inspectorate received more than 2,600 complaints alleging bullying or discrimination, still only a fraction of the actual scale of the problem.
There is also the draft amendment to the Labour Code (UD183), adopted by the Council of Ministers on 17 February 2026 and referred to Parliament. It simplifies the definition of workplace bullying, removes the requirement to prove a health disorder, and introduces minimum compensation equal to six times the minimum wage. Employers with at least 9 employees would have to set out anti-bullying rules in their work regulations.
This article explains how to turn a dormant policy into a working response model, from roles and reporting routes, through the first 72 hours after a report, to its relationship with the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Key terms you need to know
Before moving to the practical steps, it is useful to clarify the terminology. The table below collects terms used later in the article.
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Workplace bullying (mobbing, Labour Code Article 94³ § 2) | Persistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of an employee. The current definition requires several conditions to be met together; the draft amendment simplifies it to “persistent harassment.” |
| Discrimination (Labour Code Articles 18³ᵃ to 18³ᵉ) | Unequal treatment of an employee because of sex, age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, or another characteristic. It covers the entire employment relationship, from recruitment to termination. |
| Compensation for non-pecuniary harm | A monetary award for non-material harm, such as psychological suffering. Under the current law, the claimant must prove a health disorder; the amendment would remove this requirement. |
| Damages (Labour Code Article 94³ § 4) | An award for pecuniary loss. The minimum is the current minimum wage for work, PLN 4,806 gross from 1 January 2026, with no upper limit. |
| Investigation | An internal process for examining a report, conducted by an anti-bullying committee, an appointed person, or an external entity. |
| Anti-bullying committee | A team appointed by the employer to review a report. Its findings may have evidentiary value but do not bind the labour court. |
| Exculpation | The employer avoiding liability by showing that it took real and objectively effective preventive measures. |
Why an anti-bullying policy alone does not protect an employer
In judgment I PK 35/11 of 3 August 2011, the Supreme Court determined that the duty to prevent workplace bullying is an obligation to exercise due care, not an obligation to achieve a result. An employer can avoid liability, but only by demonstrating that it took real preventive measures with objective potential to be effective, such as training, procedures, and informing the team.
In judgment III PSKP 8/23 of 6 July 2023, the Supreme Court held that an anti-bullying procedure is not required by statute: Labour Code Article 94³ § 1 is general, and the choice of measures belongs to the employer. But the absence of any action makes exculpation significantly harder.
What this means for your company
| Situation | Consequence |
|---|---|
| You have a policy, but no one knows or uses it | A paper policy is not evidence that you exercised due care. |
| You have a policy and train managers, but no reporting procedure | There is a response gap. When a report arrives, HR improvises. |
| You have a procedure, but the anti-bullying committee does not substantiate bullying | The committee’s findings do not bind the labour court (District Court judgment IV P 101/23); the court assesses the matter independently. |
| You have no preventive measures | The court may find the employer liable for a supervisor’s bullying (District Court judgment VI P 304/17). |
The takeaway: a document on the intranet is not enough. Courts assess the reality and effectiveness of the steps taken, not just their form.
2026 Labour Code amendment: what it would change for employers
Draft UD183 passed its first reading in Parliament on 25 March 2026 and was referred to the Extraordinary Committee for Codification Amendments. As of this article’s publication, the provisions were not in force, but the direction of change was clear.
A new definition of workplace bullying
The current definition requires several conditions to be met together: persistence, duration, harassment or intimidation, and specific effects such as an undermined assessment of professional suitability, humiliation, or isolation. The proposed definition simplifies workplace bullying to “persistent harassment of an employee,” where persistence means repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct.
| Feature | Current definition | Proposed definition |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement of long duration | Yes, a separate condition | No; “persistence” includes repetition |
| Requirement of a specific effect | Yes, such as a lowered assessment, humiliation, or isolation | No; effects would affect the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary harm |
| Requirement of the perpetrator’s intent | Not expressly, although case law allowed for unintentional bullying | No; an intent requirement is expressly excluded |
| Incidental conduct | Could qualify if the conditions were met | Expressly excluded from the definition |
| Justified criticism of work | No express exclusion | Expressly excluded from the scope of workplace bullying |
New duties and claims
- A duty to actively and continuously prevent workplace bullying, covering prevention, detection, response, and corrective action.
- A duty to set out procedures in the work regulations or an announcement for employers with at least 9 employees.
- Minimum compensation for non-pecuniary harm: six times the minimum wage, about PLN 28,836 using the PLN 4,806 minimum wage from 1 January 2026.
- Removal of the health-disorder requirement as a condition for seeking compensation for non-pecuniary harm. A finding of workplace bullying would be enough.
- A recourse claim by the employer against the direct perpetrator after paying benefits to the employee.
- Transfer of workplace-bullying cases to district courts, regardless of the value of the claim.
The proposed vacatio legis is 21 days from publication in the Journal of Laws, with an additional period to update work regulations, either 3 or 6 months. The source materials conflict, and the final period was unknown until the law is enacted.
Contact us if you want to check whether your current procedures meet the proposed amendment’s requirements.
The scale of the problem: figures that should concern management
Formal complaints to the National Labour Inspectorate are only the tip of the iceberg. Data from different sources show the gap between official statistics and employees’ actual experiences.
| Data source | Period | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| National Labour Inspectorate (PIP): bullying complaints | 2024 | About 1,900 complaints |
| PIP: bullying and discrimination complaints combined | 2024 | More than 2,600 complaints |
| PIP: legal advice concerning bullying | 2024 | 1,367, a 60% year-over-year increase |
| CBOS | 2024 | 40% of working people experienced improper treatment within 5 years |
| UCE Research / ePsycholodzy.pl | 2023 | 41.4% experienced bullying-type conduct within 6 months |
| Safe at Work Coalition | Latest available | 52% of employees say they have experienced workplace bullying |
| Antal / Dobra Fundacja report | 713 respondents | 93% experienced conduct that could constitute workplace bullying at least once |
Court data for 2025: 692 workplace-bullying cases in district courts and 262 in regional courts, with only 44 favorable rulings among nearly 1,000 cases. The low success rate does not mean the problem does not exist. It reflects the burden of proof on the employee and the fact that many cases end in a settlement or withdrawal of the claim.
Industries with the highest complaint rate (2024)
| Industry | Complaints per 100,000 workers |
|---|---|
| Culture, entertainment, and recreation | 28 |
| Accommodation and food services | 17 |
| Trade and repairs | 11 |
| Waste and wastewater management | About 10 to 11 |
| Real estate services | About 10 to 11 |
| Education | About 10 to 11 |
IT does not appear at the top of PIP statistics, but that does not mean the risk is low. Technology companies often combine employment and B2B models, have flat structures with unclear divisions of responsibility, and grow quickly, creating tensions that may never become formal complaints.
How to build a response model for workplace bullying and discrimination, step by step
Step 1: Audit existing policies and procedures
Start by checking whether the documents translate into real roles, reporting routes, and investigation procedures. Check specifically:
- Do employees know about the anti-bullying policy? Is it actively communicated, not merely “available”?
- Do managers know what conduct may constitute workplace bullying and how to respond to early signals?
- Does the internal reporting procedure describe reporting channels, response deadlines, confidentiality rules, and decision paths?
- Are people assigned responsibility for receiving reports and conducting investigations?
- Do the documents reflect the current legal position, including the proposed changes in draft UD183?
Step 2: Assign roles and accountability paths
When the first serious report arrives, no one should have to ask who is handling it. Write down:
- Who receives reports: HR, a designated compliance officer, or an external entity such as a law firm.
- Who conducts the investigation: an internal committee, an external entity, or a mixed model.
- Who makes decisions: the board, COO, or Head of HR, and on what basis.
- Who escalates and when: clear escalation thresholds, such as automatic external escalation when a report concerns a board member.
- Who handles internal communications: what to tell the team, when, and in what form.
Having an external law firm conduct investigations offers concrete benefits: independent assessment, experience conducting interviews, and protection of the reporting person’s confidentiality.
Step 3: Internal reporting procedure
The procedure must cover:
- Reporting channels: at least two, such as an online form with an anonymous reporting option and an oral channel.
- Response deadlines: acknowledgment of receipt, for example, within 48 hours; start of an investigation, for example, within 7 days; and feedback to the reporting person, for example, within 3 months, by analogy with the Whistleblower Protection Act.
- Confidentiality rules: who can access the reporting person’s data and how to protect their identity at each stage.
- Documentation: a report register, interview notes, decisions, and their reasons.
- Protection of the reporting person: a ban on retaliation and monitoring of their situation after the investigation ends.
Step 4: Train managers
A supervisor’s conduct in the first hours after a report often determines the scale of the problem. Managers need to know:
- How to recognize signs of workplace bullying and discrimination, with concrete examples.
- What not to do: do not dismiss the issue, confront the parties without a procedure, or notify the person named in the report before evidence is secured.
- Where to refer the matter, with a clear internal reporting route.
- How to speak with the team: what can be said and what would breach confidentiality.
Training must not be a one-time event. The recommended minimum is once a year, with updates on new rules and internal experience.
The first 72 hours after a report: crisis checklist
When HR receives a report, speed and an orderly response matter. This checklist helps avoid common mistakes.
| Time | Action | Responsible person |
|---|---|---|
| 0 to 4 hours | Secure the report: register it, acknowledge receipt, and limit the number of people with access to the information. | Person appointed to receive reports |
| 0 to 24 hours | Initial assessment: does the report concern workplace bullying, discrimination, an interpersonal conflict, or another infringement? | HR and a lawyer, internal or external |
| 0 to 24 hours | Secure evidence: correspondence, recordings, system logs, and schedules. | HR and IT for technical matters |
| 24 to 48 hours | Decide whether to open an investigation and appoint a committee or an external entity. | Board, COO, or Head of HR |
| 24 to 48 hours | Update the reporting person and confirm that the report is being handled. | Designated person |
| 48 to 72 hours | Assess whether interim measures are needed, such as moving teams, limiting contact between the parties, or temporarily changing reporting lines. | HR and the direct supervisor, if not a party |
| 48 to 72 hours | Set internal communication rules: what to tell the team if questions arise. | HR and the board |
Without a ready framework, people improvise. Improvisation under pressure leads to mistakes that are difficult to fix later.
Workplace bullying and the Whistleblower Protection Act: connections many companies miss
The Act of 14 June 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) does not include workplace bullying as a separate category of legal infringement. The list in Article 3 is closed and does not expressly mention labor law.
But Article 12(1) of the Act expressly lists workplace bullying and discrimination as examples of prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower. This has practical consequences:
- If an employee makes a whistleblower report, for example, concerning GDPR, occupational health and safety, or environmental protection, and then experiences workplace bullying, the employer is liable under both the Labour Code and the Whistleblower Protection Act.
- For retaliation, the burden of proof is reversed: the employer must show that the adverse treatment was not connected with the report.
- Retaliation may carry criminal liability, including imprisonment for up to 2 to 3 years.
- Compensation under Article 14 of the Whistleblower Protection Act must be at least the average monthly wage in the national economy.
For companies employing at least 50 people that have a duty to implement an internal reporting procedure under the Whistleblower Protection Act, the two systems, anti-bullying and whistleblowing, should be designed consistently to avoid conflicting routes and gaps in protection.
What inaction costs: financial and operational risks
Legal and financial risks
| Type of risk | Basis | Potential amount |
|---|---|---|
| Compensation for non-pecuniary harm caused by bullying (current law) | Labour Code Article 94³ § 3 | No statutory minimum or maximum; awards in confirmed judgments range from PLN 20,000 to 45,000. |
| Compensation for non-pecuniary harm caused by bullying (after amendment) | Draft UD183 | Minimum: six times the minimum wage (about PLN 28,836), with no upper limit. |
| Damages for pecuniary loss | Labour Code Article 94³ § 4 | Minimum: the minimum wage (PLN 4,806), with no upper limit. |
| Damages for breach of equal treatment | Labour Code Article 18³ᵈ | Minimum: the minimum wage, with no upper limit. |
| Compensation under the Whistleblower Protection Act when claims accumulate | Article 14 of the Act | Minimum: the average monthly wage in the national economy. |
Benefits under Labour Code Article 94³ are exempt from personal income tax (Article 21(1)(3) of the Personal Income Tax Act).
Operational and reputational risks
- Employee departures: the Antal / Dobra Fundacja report found that 50% of people who experienced workplace bullying changed jobs or considered doing so; 70% reported lower productivity.
- Management time: chaotic crisis management engages the board and HR for weeks instead of letting them focus on company growth.
- Reputational risk: reports of bullying in the media, on Glassdoor, or on social media may affect recruitment, particularly in IT.
- Escalation to court: without de-escalation procedures, an interpersonal conflict is more likely to become a court case.
The cost of a preventive system, including an audit, procedures, and training, is many times lower than the cost of one serious workplace-bullying dispute.
How we can help your company
We treat employment law as part of organizational management, not only as an HR issue. We work at real moments of change: team growth, conflict, restructuring, and bringing in an investor.
For preventing workplace bullying and discrimination, we offer:
- Audit of existing policies and procedures: compare documents with how the organization actually operates and identify gaps and inconsistencies.
- Design of an internal reporting procedure: channels, deadlines, roles, decision paths, and confidentiality rules, aligned with the whistleblowing procedure if one applies.
- Training for managers and HR: recognizing warning signs, first response, conducting conversations, and handling a PIP inspection.
- Conducting or supporting investigations as an external entity or in a mixed model with an employer representative and external lawyer.
- Documentation updates for draft UD183: adapting work regulations and announcements to the proposed requirements.
- Ongoing legal support: monitor changes, issue alerts, and provide advice when signs of team tension arise.
We connect employment law with business context, including IP, ownership structure, and growth plans, so HR decisions align with the company’s direction.
Organize your response model before the first report arrives
An anti-bullying policy alone does not protect an employer. Courts assess the reality and effectiveness of the measures taken. The proposed Labour Code amendment raises the bar with a new definition of workplace bullying, mandatory procedures in work regulations, and minimum compensation of about PLN 28,836. The connection with the Whistleblower Protection Act may also increase employer liability when claims accumulate.
If your company is growing, changing its structure, or combining different engagement models, now is the time to check whether you have a working response model rather than just a document.
Frequently asked questions
We have had an anti-bullying policy for several years. Do we need to update it?
Yes, if it has not been reviewed since it was introduced. Courts assess not merely whether a document exists, but whether it is actually applied and known to employees. The proposed amendment to the Labour Code (UD183) also changes the definition of workplace bullying and would require employers with at least 9 employees to set procedures in work regulations. Check that your policy covers current reporting channels, assigned roles, and response deadlines.
Who in the company should receive reports: HR, the board, or an external person?
It depends on the organization’s size and structure. In companies with up to 50 people, this role is often performed by a designated HR employee or compliance officer. Larger organizations may use a dedicated person or team, sometimes supported by an external entity such as a law firm. Having an external party conduct investigations increases the independence of the assessment and protects the reporting person’s confidentiality. Most importantly, the role must be formally assigned and known to employees before the first report arrives.
What should we do when we receive the first report? What are the first three steps?
In the first hours: (1) secure and register the report and limit access to the information; (2) make an initial assessment: does it concern workplace bullying, discrimination, or an interpersonal conflict? (3) secure evidence, including correspondence, logs, and schedules. Within 24 to 48 hours, decide whether to open an investigation and confirm to the reporting person that the report is being handled.
Can a workplace-bullying report also be a whistleblower report?
Workplace bullying is not listed in the closed catalogue of infringements in Article 3 of the Whistleblower Protection Act. However, Article 12(1) lists workplace bullying and discrimination as forms of prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower. If an employee first makes a whistleblower report, for example, about a GDPR or occupational health and safety breach, and then experiences workplace bullying in response, the employer is liable under both legal grounds, with a reversed burden of proof and criminal liability for retaliation.
The Labour Code amendment changes the definition of workplace bullying. What would that mean for my company in practice?
The proposed definition simplifies workplace bullying to “persistent harassment,” without requiring long duration, a specific effect such as a lowered assessment of professional suitability, or the perpetrator’s intent. The health-disorder requirement for compensation for non-pecuniary harm would be removed, and the minimum award would be six times the minimum wage (about PLN 28,836). For an employer, this means an employee would have an easier time proving workplace bullying and the cost of losing a case would increase. It is therefore worth reviewing procedures and training managers now.
What is the board’s actual liability if the company does not respond to a report?
The employer’s liability for workplace bullying is contractual and arises from failing to meet the duty to provide a work environment free from bullying. Taking no preventive or responsive action makes exculpation significantly harder. In case VI P 304/17, the court found the employer liable for a supervisor’s bullying because it failed to demonstrate that it had taken any anti-bullying measures. The proposed amendment also introduces a recourse claim by the employer against the direct perpetrator. This may partly redistribute financial responsibility, but it does not release the board from its duty to implement a prevention system.
