{"id":5162,"date":"2026-11-09T13:07:00","date_gmt":"2026-11-09T13:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/?p=5162"},"modified":"2026-11-09T13:07:01","modified_gmt":"2026-11-09T13:07:01","slug":"pip-b2b-contract-reclassification-inspection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/pip-b2b-contract-reclassification-inspection\/","title":{"rendered":"PIP Can Reclassify Your B2B Contract as Employment by Decision. What to Do Before the Inspector Arrives."},"content":{"rendered":"

Until recently, someone had to go to court to convert your B2B contract into an employment relationship. On 8 July 2026, the roles were reversed. Now it is the labour inspector who issues an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship \u2014 and you have limited time to appeal it. The inspector does not even have to visit your premises. They can request an export of data from your HR system, analyse schedules, login records and settlements, and then issue a decision on that basis.<\/p>\n

The Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate<\/strong> (Journal of Laws 2026, item 473<\/a>) has entered into force and changed the rules of the game for every company using B2B contracts, contracts of mandate or contracts for specific work. The legislation is now in force. The question is not \u201cwhen should we prepare?”, but \u201cwhat should we do now?”.<\/p>\n

In this article, you will learn exactly what the amendment has changed, what financial and operational risks are associated with reclassifying contracts<\/a>, and in what order to prepare your company \u2014 from mapping contracts and assessing risk to establishing an inspection procedure.<\/p>\n

Key concepts you need to know<\/h2>\n

Before we go into detail, let us clarify the terminology. The legislation uses concepts that have specific implications for your company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concept<\/th>\nWhat it means for your company<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Employment relationship (Article 22 \u00a7 1 of the Labour Code)<\/strong><\/td>\nA relationship in which a person performs work of a specified type, under supervision, at a place and time designated by the employer, in return for remuneration. If your contractor works in this way, they are formally an employee, regardless of what the contract is called.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Article 22 \u00a7 1\u00b9 of the Labour Code<\/strong><\/td>\nEmployment under the conditions characteristic of an employment relationship constitutes employment under an employment relationship \u2014 regardless of the name of the contract concluded.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Article 22 \u00a7 1\u00b2 of the Labour Code<\/strong><\/td>\nA prohibition on replacing an employment contract with a civil-law contract while retaining the conditions characteristic of an employment relationship.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Administrative decision of the National Labour Inspectorate<\/strong><\/td>\nA new power granted to labour inspectors (Article 11(1)(7a) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate). A formal act that determines the existence of an employment relationship \u2014 without court involvement.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Order to remedy infringements<\/strong><\/td>\nThe stage preceding a decision. The inspector instructs the company to change its practices. Failure to comply with the order opens the way for a decision to be issued.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Individual interpretation issued by the Chief Labour Inspector<\/strong><\/td>\nAn opinion issued by the Chief Labour Inspector upon request (fee: PLN 40; deadline: 30 days). It is binding on the authorities of the National Labour Inspectorate, but not on the applicant.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

What the amendment to the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate has changed<\/h2>\n

An administrative decision instead of court proceedings<\/h3>\n

Until 8 July 2026, the process worked as follows: an inspector could only bring an action to establish the existence of an employment relationship. The case went to court, continued for months, and the burden of proof was shared between the parties.<\/p>\n

Since 8 July 2026, a labour inspector has been able to independently issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship<\/strong> (Article 11(1)(7a) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate<\/a>). This decision determines seven elements at once:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The parties to the employment relationship<\/li>\n
  2. The date on which the employment relationship began<\/li>\n
  3. The type of employment contract<\/li>\n
  4. The type of work<\/li>\n
  5. The place where the work is performed<\/li>\n
  6. Remuneration<\/li>\n
  7. Working hours<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This is not a general statement. It provides a ready-made basis for further social security, tax and employment-related settlements.<\/p>\n

    Two routes available to the National Labour Inspectorate \u2014 neither is convenient for the company<\/h3>\n

    The National Labour Inspectorate has retained the right to bring an action to establish the existence of an employment relationship (Article 11(1)(11) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate). It therefore has two routes to choose from:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Route<\/th>\nMechanism<\/th>\nWho initiates the court dispute<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Administrative decision<\/td>\nThe inspector issues a decision and the company must appeal<\/td>\nThe company<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Action for a declaration<\/td>\nThe inspector brings proceedings against the company before the labour court<\/td>\nThe National Labour Inspectorate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The difference is fundamental. In the case of an administrative decision, it is the company that must act \u2014 preparing an appeal and evidence within a limited timeframe. In the case of an action for a declaration, the initiative lies with the authority.<\/p>\n

    Order to remedy infringements \u2014 the warning stage<\/h3>\n

    Before issuing a decision, the inspector may issue an order to remedy infringements<\/strong>. This is a signal that the authority has identified a problem. The company\u2019s response to the order has a direct impact on how the case proceeds.<\/p>\n

    Silence or a one-sentence response stating \u201cwe disagree” is the worst-case scenario. Failure to comply with the order provides grounds for proceeding to a decision.<\/p>\n

    Remote inspections \u2014 the end of the time buffer<\/h3>\n

    The Act allows inspections or individual inspection activities to be conducted remotely \u2014 using electronic means of communication (text of the amending Act<\/a>). The inspector may request documents in electronic form. The inspection report may be prepared electronically.<\/p>\n

    The few days that companies previously had between receiving notice and the inspector physically arriving are gone. The data comes directly from the company\u2019s systems \u2014 schedules, login records, time-reporting tools, calendars and messaging platforms.<\/p>\n

    Targeted selection for inspection based on Social Insurance Institution and National Revenue Administration data<\/h3>\n

    The National Labour Inspectorate does not conduct inspections at random. Its inspection planning model is based on risk analysis<\/strong> using three categories (low, medium and high), updated every three months (Order No. 14\/26 of the Chief Labour Inspector<\/a>). The model takes account of data from the databases of the Social Insurance Institution and the National Revenue Administration.<\/p>\n

    The explanatory memorandum to the draft Act amending the Code of Civil Procedure of 13 April 2026 (legislative number of the National Labour Inspectorate reform: UD283) explicitly confirms: \u201cThe Social Insurance Institution will also be required to provide information about identified irregularities.”<\/em><\/p>\n

    In this model, a company where dozens of sole traders issue very similar invoices for very similar amounts to a single customer every month is a signal, not statistical background. Recurring settlement patterns visible in the databases of the Social Insurance Institution and the National Revenue Administration may trigger a scheduled inspection without waiting for a complaint.<\/p>\n

    Contact us<\/a> \u2014 we will help you assess whether your company is at increased risk of inspection.<\/p>\n

    Enforceability of decisions and the appeal procedure<\/h2>\n

    Does the decision take effect immediately?<\/h3>\n

    A decision of the National Labour Inspectorate establishing the existence of an employment relationship is not automatically enforceable immediately<\/strong>. It becomes enforceable in one of three circumstances (Article 11(2k) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate<\/a>):<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. On the day after the appeal deadline expires \u2014 if the company has not filed an appeal<\/li>\n
    2. On the date the court judgment becomes final<\/li>\n
    3. Earlier \u2014 if the decision is declared immediately enforceable<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      As a rule, an appeal filed on time prevents the decision of the National Labour Inspectorate itself from becoming enforceable. This is important \u2014 but there are limits.<\/p>\n

      An appeal blocks the decision, but not the Social Insurance Institution or the National Revenue Administration<\/h3>\n

      Filing an appeal suspends the enforceability of the decision of the National Labour Inspectorate itself. However, it does not automatically suspend social security obligations owed to the Social Insurance Institution or tax obligations owed to the National Revenue Administration. These require separate determinations by the competent authorities.<\/p>\n

      A company may therefore find itself in a situation where the decision of the National Labour Inspectorate is suspended, but the Social Insurance Institution or the National Revenue Administration is conducting its own proceedings based on information obtained through inter-agency data sharing.<\/p>\n

      How the appeal procedure works<\/h3>\n

      An appeal against a decision of a district labour inspector must be lodged through the district labour inspector<\/strong> with the regional court. The inspector may amend or revoke the decision if they consider the appeal justified. Otherwise, the inspector forwards it to the court together with the case file (Article 14b of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate<\/a>).<\/p>\n

      The court may suspend the immediate enforcement of the decision on its own initiative during the proceedings.<\/p>\n

      Note:<\/strong> Available sources provide conflicting information regarding the exact appeal deadline (7 days in the context of enforceability, one month in the context of the general procedure). The full wording of Article 14b(8) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate should be verified in the official consolidated text. Consult a lawyer about the specific deadline before taking action.<\/p>\n

      Time scope of the decision\u2019s effects<\/h3>\n

      As a rule, the decision takes effect from the date on which it is issued. But there is a catch: if the contract was terminated during the inspection, the relevant point of reference becomes the date on which the inspection was initiated<\/strong>, not the date on which the decision was issued.<\/p>\n

      Quickly terminating contracts with contractors after the inspector arrives does not close the matter \u2014 on the contrary, it may worsen the company\u2019s position.<\/p>\n

      Financial and operational risks following the reclassification of B2B contracts<\/h2>\n

      Social security contributions \u2014 the biggest cost<\/h3>\n

      Reclassifying a contract changes the basis for social insurance coverage. Instead of contributions and settlements arising from business activity or a contract of mandate, there is an employment relationship. The consequences include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Cost category<\/th>\nScope<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Social security contributions (old-age pension, disability pension and accident insurance)<\/td>\nAdditional contributions on remuneration under the employment relationship for the periods covered by the reclassification<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Health insurance contributions<\/td>\nAdjustment of the contribution assessment basis<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Labour Fund and Guaranteed Employee Benefits Fund<\/td>\nAdditional charges payable by the contribution payer<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Late-payment interest<\/td>\nCharged from the due date of each contribution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      As a rule, social security contribution liabilities become time-barred 5 years after they become due (Article 24(4) of the Social Insurance System Act<\/a>). The limitation period may be suspended if the issue of a decision by the Social Insurance Institution depends on a determination by another authority or court.<\/p>\n

      For contracts for specific work, the difference is greatest \u2014 the starting point is the absence of any basis for social insurance coverage.<\/p>\n

      The economic burden falls on the contribution payer. Recovering the employee-funded portion of the contributions from the individual is difficult and contentious in practice \u2014 there is no established case law determining such claims in the context of B2B reclassification.<\/p>\n

      Tax implications<\/h3>\n

      The income ceases to be income from non-agricultural business activity. It becomes employment income. The company assumes the role of remitter of personal income tax advances for the periods covered by the reclassification. For the contractor, questions arise concerning the flat-rate tax or lump-sum tax<\/a> already accounted for as part of their business activity.<\/p>\n

      VAT implications \u2014 no clear rules<\/h3>\n

      Article 106j(1) of the VAT Act requires a corrective invoice to be issued if, after an invoice has been issued, the taxable amount changes or an error is identified (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1263<\/a>). Article 108(1) establishes an obligation to pay the tax shown on the invoice \u2014 regardless of whether it was due.<\/p>\n

      There is no general tax ruling or judgment determining what happens to invoices for the periods covered by reclassification. Correcting an invoice does not necessarily eliminate the obligation under Article 108(1). The issue requires a separate tax analysis.<\/p>\n

      Employment implications<\/h3>\n

      Following reclassification, the company becomes an employer with the full range of obligations:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Overtime pay and allowances<\/li>\n
      2. Payment in lieu of unused annual leave<\/li>\n
      3. Protection against termination (Article 11(2l) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate \u2014 the decision may not serve as grounds for unfavourable treatment of the employee)<\/li>\n
      4. Obligation to keep working time records<\/li>\n
      5. Occupational health and safety obligations<\/a><\/li>\n
      6. Maintaining personnel files<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Scale effect<\/h3>\n

        When dozens of contracts are involved at the same time, the liability is no longer the cost of a single case. It becomes a balance-sheet item. The initiation of proceedings by a labour inspector interrupts the limitation period for employee claims<\/a> (3 years \u2014 Article 291 \u00a7 1 of the Labour Code). Once interrupted, the limitation period begins to run again when the decision or court judgment becomes final.<\/p>\n

        An additional layer of risk \u2014 criminal liability<\/h3>\n

        Article 218a \u00a7 1 of the Criminal Code provides for a penalty for the malicious or persistent infringement of employee rights arising from an employment relationship or social insurance: a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for up to 2 years. If a company knowingly maintained a sham civil-law arrangement under conditions characteristic of an employment relationship, this may open not only an administrative route, but potentially a criminal one as well.<\/p>\n

        Article 304 \u00a7 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires state institutions (including the Social Insurance Institution) to immediately notify the public prosecutor\u2019s office of a suspected offence prosecuted ex officio.<\/p>\n

        What determines classification \u2014 not the name of the contract, but how the work is performed<\/h2>\n

        The inspector assesses how the work is actually performed<\/strong>, not the heading of the contract or the parties\u2019 shared intention. Article 22 \u00a7 1\u00b9 of the Labour Code states explicitly: employment under the conditions characteristic of an employment relationship constitutes employment under an employment relationship, regardless of the name of the contract concluded.<\/p>\n

        No single characteristic determines the case. What matters is the combination of characteristics and a consistent overall picture of subordination.<\/p>\n

        Characteristics of an employment relationship under Article 22 \u00a7 1 of the Labour Code<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Characteristic<\/th>\nWhat the inspector looks at<\/th>\nTypical risk indicator<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
        Type of work<\/td>\nWhether the scope of duties is defined and repetitive<\/td>\nTasks identical to those performed by employees in the same position<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Personal performance<\/td>\nWhether the same person always performs the same work<\/td>\nNo genuine possibility of substitution, even though the contract provides for it<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Subordination<\/td>\nWhether the company gives instructions, sets priorities and controls how the work is performed<\/td>\nSchedules, fixed hours, a company supervisor, reporting through an HR tool<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Place of work<\/td>\nWhether the company imposes a location<\/td>\nRequirement to be present in the office, company equipment, VPN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Working time<\/td>\nWhether fixed hours apply<\/td>\nDaily briefings, on-call duties, time records<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Remuneration<\/td>\nHow the settlement model works<\/td>\nA fixed monthly amount unchanged for months, hourly billing not linked to results<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Business risk<\/td>\nWho bears the economic risk<\/td>\nThe contractor bears no risk \u2014 one customer, no other clients<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        A common mistake:<\/strong> the B2B contract refers to deliverables and independence, while in practice there is a schedule, fixed working hours, a company supervisor, reporting through an HR tool and no genuine possibility of substitution. The contract says one thing, while the reality is another.<\/p>\n

        Another common mistake:<\/strong> two people in the same position perform identical tasks \u2014 one under an employment contract and the other on a B2B basis, with no justification for the difference. This is evidence in itself.<\/p>\n

        The correct sequence of actions \u2014 what to do now<\/h2>\n

        The outcome of the case is determined by what the company has in its records on the date the inspection is initiated, not by what it adds after the inspection has ended. In practice, this amounts to evidentiary preclusion. That is why the order in which you act matters.<\/p>\n

        Step 1: map your contracts<\/h3>\n

        Prepare an overview of all civil-law and B2B contracts. For each contract, determine:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The parties and the date on which the cooperation began<\/li>\n
        2. The subject matter of the contract and the settlement model (hourly, fixed amount or based on a deliverable)<\/li>\n
        3. The place and time where the work is performed<\/li>\n
        4. The functional supervisor \u2014 who actually assigns tasks<\/li>\n
        5. Whether the contractor has other clients and bears business risk<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Step 2: assess risk against each characteristic under Article 22 \u00a7 1 of the Labour Code<\/h3>\n

          Assess each group of contractors separately. Do not rely on a general impression; analyse each characteristic of an employment relationship individually: type of work, personal performance, subordination, place and time, remuneration and business risk.<\/p>\n

          Identify positions in which employees and B2B contractors perform identical tasks. Prepare a justification for the difference or eliminate it.<\/p>\n

          Step 3: decide on the operating model<\/h3>\n

          Based on the map and risk assessment, decide:<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Which positions will be converted to employment<\/li>\n
          2. Which arrangements may remain B2B \u2014 after changing the practices<\/li>\n
          3. Which arrangements should be terminated<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Starting by amending contracts without first mapping them and assessing the risks is a common mistake. The result is that the documentation departs even more clearly from actual practice.<\/p>\n

            Step 4: implement changes in documentation and practice<\/h3>\n

            Only now should you update contracts, clarify the rules of cooperation and put internal communications in order. Verify who is covered by HR regulations, policies and procedures \u2014 make sure they do not expressly apply to B2B contractors (e.g. leave requests, schedules and workplace regulations).<\/p>\n

            Check whether the contracts provide a genuine possibility of substitution and whether this is actually used. The absence of substitutability is one of the strongest indicators of subordination.<\/p>\n

            Step 5: National Labour Inspectorate inspection procedure<\/h3>\n

            Establish a written procedure with assigned roles:<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Who receives and escalates correspondence from the National Labour Inspectorate<\/li>\n
            2. Who serves as the sole point of contact with the inspector<\/li>\n
            3. Who collects and verifies documents before they are provided<\/li>\n
            4. Who conducts substantive discussions with the inspector<\/li>\n
            5. Who decides how to respond to an order to remedy infringements<\/li>\n
            6. Who monitors the appeal deadline<\/li>\n
            7. Who has permission to export data from systems and verifies the scope of the authority\u2019s request<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              A real-life scenario: a letter arrives at reception, no one knows who is responsible for contacting the inspector, and an IT employee exports data from the system without verifying the scope of the request. This is a situation you want to avoid.<\/p>\n

              Step 6: train line managers<\/h3>\n

              Managers create evidence. Their day-to-day conduct \u2014 schedules, instructions, availability requirements and reporting \u2014 generates evidence in cases seeking to establish an employment relationship. Inspection evidence is created in everyday practice, not by the legal department during the inspection.<\/p>\n

              Explain to leaders how to assign tasks and communicate with contractors without creating an employment relationship.<\/p>\n

              Step 7: estimate financial exposure<\/h3>\n

              Calculate the potential cost of reclassification for each group of contractors: contributions with interest, personal income tax advances, overtime and payments in lieu of leave. With dozens of contracts, this is a budgeting exercise, not an academic one.<\/p>\n

              Step 8: secure evidence<\/h3>\n

              Collect documents confirming the contractors\u2019 independence:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. Offers submitted to other customers<\/li>\n
              2. Business correspondence with other clients<\/li>\n
              3. Project documentation confirming independent decision-making<\/li>\n
              4. Evidence of bearing business risk (own equipment, liability insurance, investment in development)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Individual interpretation issued by the Chief Labour Inspector \u2014 a tool that can easily be used against you<\/h2>\n

                The Chief Labour Inspector issues individual interpretations upon request. Fee: PLN 40. Deadline: 30 days. The interpretation is binding on the authorities of the National Labour Inspectorate with respect to the matters covered by the question (information from the National Labour Inspectorate<\/a>).<\/p>\n

                Since 8 July 2026, the Chief Labour Inspector has issued 7 individual interpretations (National Labour Inspectorate announcement<\/a>). No interpretation is issued if the matter is already covered by proceedings before the National Labour Inspectorate or the Social Insurance Institution.<\/p>\n

                The trap:<\/strong> the company applies for an interpretation, describing the intended model instead of its actual practices. During an inspection, the document works against the company \u2014 it demonstrates the discrepancy between its declarations and the facts.<\/p>\n

                If you are considering seeking an interpretation, describe your actual practices, not an idealised version. An interpretation based on circumstances that do not reflect day-to-day reality is a weapon in the inspector\u2019s hands.<\/p>\n

                Initial results of inspections after 8 July 2026<\/h2>\n

                Since the new legislation entered into force, the National Labour Inspectorate has conducted more than 100 inspections concerning whether the choice of a civil-law contract was justified; 35 of them have been completed (National Labour Inspectorate announcement<\/a>). Complaints concerned, among others, services, retail, manufacturing, healthcare providers and nationwide restaurant chains.<\/p>\n

                As of the publication date, there is no confirmed case of the first administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship (with a date, number and appeal status). This does not change the fact that inspections are ongoing and the authority is actively exercising its new powers.<\/p>\n

                Penalties for failing to comply with an order and obstructing an inspection<\/h2>\n

                Failure to comply with an enforceable order of the National Labour Inspectorate within the prescribed period and obstructing the inspectorate\u2019s activities (preventing an inspection visit or failing to provide information) are offences under Article 283 \u00a7 2(7) and (8) of the Labour Code. The standard range of fines is from PLN 1,000 to PLN 30,000 (Labour Code \u2014 ISAP<\/a>), although the amending Act includes changes concerning the amounts of fines \u2014 their exact scope should be verified in the current consolidated text.<\/p>\n

                We can help you<\/h2>\n

                Preparing your company for the new powers of the National Labour Inspectorate<\/a> is not about changing a few contractual clauses. It means changing how managers assign tasks, how HR systems record data and how the company responds when contacted by an inspection authority.<\/p>\n

                Our support includes:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Audit of cooperation models<\/strong> \u2014 mapping contracts, assessing risk against each characteristic under Article 22 \u00a7 1 of the Labour Code and estimating financial exposure<\/li>\n
                2. Operating model decision and implementation of changes<\/strong> \u2014 not only in documentation, but also in the team\u2019s day-to-day practices<\/li>\n
                3. Written National Labour Inspectorate inspection procedure<\/strong> \u2014 with assigned roles, an escalation path for orders and measures to safeguard deadlines<\/li>\n
                4. Training for line managers<\/strong> \u2014 so that day-to-day conduct does not generate evidence<\/li>\n
                5. Preparing an application for an interpretation by the Chief Labour Inspector<\/strong> \u2014 based on actual rather than intended practices<\/li>\n
                6. Support during inspections and appeals<\/strong> \u2014 from the first letter through to the conclusion of the proceedings<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  We combine employment law with business context \u2014 the structure of cooperation, settlement models and the company\u2019s growth plans. This ensures that staffing decisions are aligned with the organisation\u2019s direction.<\/p>\n

                  The legislation is in force \u2014 it is time to act<\/h2>\n

                  The Act entered into force on 8 July 2026. The National Labour Inspectorate is conducting inspections. The selection model based on data from the Social Insurance Institution and the National Revenue Administration is operational. Companies that have not put their cooperation models in order face risks that increase with every passing month.<\/p>\n

                  The correct sequence is: map contracts \u2192 assess risk \u2192 decide on the operating model \u2192 implement changes \u2192 establish an inspection procedure \u2192 train managers. Starting at the end \u2014 with amendments and documentation \u2014 produces paperwork that will not withstand scrutiny against day-to-day practices.<\/p>\n

                  If you use B2B contracts, contracts of mandate or contracts for specific work and want to assess your company\u2019s exposure, contact us<\/a>. We will help you through the entire process: from diagnosis to inspection readiness.<\/p>\n

                  Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

                  Does a contractor\u2019s consent to a B2B arrangement and their own choice of this form protect the company against a decision by the National Labour Inspectorate?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  No. Article 22 \u00a7 1\u00b9 of the Labour Code states that employment under the conditions characteristic of an employment relationship constitutes employment under an employment relationship, regardless of the name of the contract concluded. The inspector assesses how the work is performed, not the parties\u2019 intentions. A contractor\u2019s consent to a B2B arrangement does not change its classification if the work is performed under supervision, at a specified place and time.<\/p>\n

                  Does a decision by the National Labour Inspectorate retroactively cover previous years of cooperation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  As a rule, the decision takes effect from the date on which it is issued. If the contract was terminated during the inspection \u2014 from the date on which the inspection was initiated. Earlier periods may, however, still be covered by an action to establish the existence of an employment relationship (the second route available to the National Labour Inspectorate) and proceedings before the Social Insurance Institution, where contribution liabilities become time-barred 5 years after they become due.<\/p>\n

                  Following reclassification, can I recover the contractor\u2019s share of the contributions from them?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  Available sources do not confirm that an employer automatically has a claim against a former contractor for reimbursement of the employee-funded portion of social security contributions. Any such claim would require a separate legal basis (e.g. unjust enrichment) and an assessment of the limitation period. There is no established case law determining this issue in the context of B2B reclassification. Consult a lawyer before taking action.<\/p>\n

                  Is it worth applying to the Chief Labour Inspector for an individual interpretation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  It can be a useful tool (PLN 40, 30 days, binding on the authorities of the National Labour Inspectorate), provided that you describe your actual practices. An interpretation issued on the basis of an idealised description of the cooperation may work against the company during an inspection \u2014 demonstrating the discrepancy between its declarations and the facts. No interpretation is issued if the matter is already covered by proceedings before the National Labour Inspectorate or the Social Insurance Institution.<\/p>\n

                  What data can an inspector obtain remotely from our systems?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  The inspector may request personnel files and any documents in electronic form, provided that the request is related to the subject matter and purpose of the inspection. This may include: login records, schedules, time-reporting tools, calendars, distribution lists and workplace messaging platforms. Determine in advance who in the company has permission to export data and who verifies the scope of the authority\u2019s request before the data is provided.<\/p>\n

                  What should we do in the first few hours after receiving an order to remedy infringements?<\/strong><\/p>\n

                  Activate the inspection procedure: identify the person responsible for contacting the inspector, verify the scope of the order, obtain internal input from the line manager and HR department, and consult a lawyer about the wording of the response. Set an internal response deadline that is shorter than the deadline imposed by the authority. Do not respond with a single sentence stating \u201cwe disagree” and do not remain silent \u2014 failure to comply with the order opens the way for an administrative decision.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  Learn how PIP can reclassify B2B contracts, what financial risks follow, and how to prepare your contracts, records and inspection response.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":3779,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","sip_alt_url":"","sip_en_pl_url":"","sip_pair_uuid":"e939c798-e0b9-4f7f-89e9-32a03d664f0c","sip_pair_state":"draft_ready"},"categories":[1442],"tags":[1530,1540,1558,1546,1549],"specialization":[1212],"practice_area":[],"class_list":["post-5162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-labor-law","tag-b2b-agreement","tag-internal-procedure","tag-pip-en","tag-risk-assessment","tag-taxes-en","specialization-labor-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5162"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5192,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5162\/revisions\/5192"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5162"},{"taxonomy":"specialization","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/specialization?post=5162"},{"taxonomy":"practice_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/practice_area?post=5162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}