{"id":3900,"date":"2026-08-17T10:41:28","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T10:41:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/?p=3900"},"modified":"2026-10-23T11:01:15","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T11:01:15","slug":"pip-powers-b2b-reclassification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/pip-powers-b2b-reclassification\/","title":{"rendered":"New PIP Powers in 2026: Preparing Your Company for B2B Reclassification"},"content":{"rendered":"

5 key takeaways<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. PIP will gain the power to administratively reclassify B2B agreements as employment relationships<\/strong> through a decision that is immediately enforceable, without first taking the case to court.<\/li>\n
  2. Reclassification may reach back up to three years<\/strong> from the date an inspection is initiated, creating an obligation to settle outstanding ZUS contributions, leave compensation, and overtime pay.<\/li>\n
  3. PIP will gain access to ZUS and KAS databases<\/strong>, allowing it to select companies for inspection more precisely based on invoicing patterns and workforce structure.<\/li>\n
  4. The wording of an agreement will not protect you from reclassification<\/strong> if day-to-day cooperation resembles employment: imposed working hours, managerial instructions, and identical HR processes.<\/li>\n
  5. Project-based billing, assessment of deliverables, and freedom to organize work<\/strong> are core features of a B2B model that reduce the risk of the relationship being treated as disguised employment.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Good practices and takeaways from the webinar<\/h2>\n

    Immediate enforceability: what it could mean for your budget<\/h3>\n

    The change with the greatest potential impact on companies using B2B contractors is the procedure for issuing decisions. Until now, PIP could only refer a case to court. Proceedings took months, sometimes years. The company had time to prepare its arguments and maintain its existing cooperation model.<\/p>\n

    Once the new rules take effect, a PIP inspector will issue an administrative decision with immediate enforceability. From the day the decision is delivered, the contractor becomes an employee. The company bears the full costs of employing the contractor: ZUS contributions, tax advances, leave, sick pay, and occupational health and safety training.<\/p>\n

    \u201cIf, after an inspection, the inspector finds that we are dealing with an employment contract, then from the day the decision is delivered we have an employee, with all the related legal consequences.\u201d
    \nKrzysztof Maci\u0105czyk<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    An appeal does not automatically suspend enforcement of the decision. A suspension requires a separate application and evidence of a risk of irreversible consequences, such as insolvency or the need to restructure. A rise in employment costs alone is not enough.<\/p>\n

    For a company with 30 B2B contractors and an average net invoice of PLN 18,000, reclassification could mean an additional PLN 160,000 to PLN 220,000 per month. From one day to the next. You would not be able to terminate the agreement for this reason.<\/p>\n

    ZUS and KAS data analytics: why a well-drafted agreement may no longer be enough<\/h3>\n

    PIP will gain access to information that has so far been beyond its reach. ZUS data will show how many employees and mandate contractors an entity reports, under which insurance codes, and on what dates. Data from the National Revenue Administration (KAS) will reveal invoicing patterns in JPK records: who invoices whom, for what amount, and how regularly.<\/p>\n

    Combining these data can make it possible to select companies for inspection automatically. If dozens of sole proprietorships are registered at one address, each invoices the same entity every month for a similar amount and has no other clients, the picture will be clear to an inspector.<\/p>\n

    The Chief Labour Inspector has publicly said that data from ZUS and KAS have already identified about 18,000 entities for possible inspection. About 200 inspections based on the new powers are planned for 2026, with an emphasis on educational measures. This gives companies time, but no guarantee.<\/p>\n

    Changing a document\u2019s name from \u201cemployment contract\u201d to \u201ccooperation agreement\u201d will change nothing. Article 22 \u00a7 1(1) of the Labour Code is clear: work performed on terms characteristic of an employment relationship is employment, regardless of the agreement\u2019s name.<\/p>\n

    Blurred lines between B2B and employment: mistakes that create evidence for an inspector<\/h3>\n

    The most common source of risk is not the contract text but the day-to-day way the team is managed. Krzysztof Maci\u0105czyk identified specific practices that inspectors treat as features of an employment relationship:<\/p>\n

    Subordination.<\/strong> The contractor receives ongoing managerial instructions, has imposed availability hours (for example, 9:00 to 17:00), must attend mandatory daily stand-ups, and reports working time. The team lead assigns tasks as \u201cthis now, then that.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Personal performance of work.<\/strong> The agreement prohibits subcontractors. The contractor is the only person performing the tasks. The company would not accept a substitute, even though the agreement does not formally rule one out.<\/p>\n

    Identical HR processes.<\/strong> The contractor goes through the same onboarding as an employee. They receive the same benefits: a sports card, private medical care, and company equipment. They are covered by the same bonus rules and take part in team events.<\/p>\n

    \u201cIt is definitely worth training managers so they know how to deal with contractors and B2B workers. A person working B2B is not an employee. There needs to be a clear distinction in how we treat these people.\u201d
    \nKrzysztof Maci\u0105czyk<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    The problem is that operational managers usually do not think in terms of employment law. A team lead who requires leave requests through the company system may not realize they have just created an argument for reclassification. An engineering manager who sets \u201ccore hours\u201d for the whole team without distinguishing between cooperation models meets the subordination criterion.<\/p>\n

    How to put these takeaways into practice<\/h2>\n

    Step 1: Map the facts (weeks 1 to 2)<\/h3>\n

    Start with a review of actual practice, not documents. Determine how many people work with the company on B2B terms, who manages their time, which HR processes apply to them, and whether they use the same tools and benefits as employees.<\/p>\n

    Ask Finance to model the costs of reclassifying 50% and 100% of B2B agreements as employment. That figure changes the perspective for every subsequent discussion about an audit.<\/p>\n

    Step 2: Review agreements against actual practice (weeks 3 to 4)<\/h3>\n

    Check not only what the agreements say but whether the wording matches reality. If an agreement provides freedom to organize work but the contractor logs in at 9:00 for a mandatory meeting and reports hours in Jira, that provision is fictional. The inspector will assess the facts.<\/p>\n

    Check whether the agreements provide for deliverables rather than duties, allow subcontractors, avoid imposed schedules, and use project-based billing. These are features that distinguish B2B cooperation from employment. A law firm specializing in legal support for technology companies and IT agreements can help identify gaps that create risk.<\/p>\n

    Step 3: Train managers (weeks 5 to 6)<\/h3>\n

    The training should not be employment-law theory. It should cover specific behaviors that create risk. Team leads, project managers, and engineering managers need to know:<\/p>\n