HR Compliance in Poland: Do Your Policies Match How Your Company Operates?

HR Compliance in Poland: Do Your Policies Match How Your Company Operates?

Your company has remote work rules, an anti-mobbing policy and a whistleblowing procedure. They have been approved, signed and filed. But if a whistleblower submitted a report today—or an inspector asked how your managers actually work with B2B contractors—would the answers match those documents?

This matters more than ever. The reform of Poland’s National Labor Inspectorate has applied since July 8, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 473). An amendment to the definition of mobbing entered into force under the Act of June 19, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046). Entities employing at least 50 people have been required to operate a whistleblowing procedure since September 25, 2024 (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928).

The common issue is whether practice matches policy. Inspectors and courts look beyond what a company says it does. A signed procedure offers little protection if managers follow a different process.

This article explains where that gap arises, the risks it creates and how to close it without bringing the business to a halt.

Polish concepts to understand first

In this article, B2B contractor means an individual engaged through a business-to-business arrangement rather than an employment contract. A mandate contract is a Polish civil-law form of engagement. Neither label, by itself, settles how the working relationship will be assessed.

Why documents alone do not protect the business

Many organizations treat HR compliance as a document exercise: remote work rules, an anti-mobbing policy and a whistleblowing procedure are all in place. The problem begins when those documents remain on the shelf while daily decisions follow different rules.

Where the gap comes from

1. Managers do not know the procedures. The remote work rules require the scope of tasks to be agreed, but a manager simply tells someone to work from home however they like. If a dispute later arises about working time or availability, the company may have no evidence of the agreed terms.
2. Documents are treated as a one-time project. A whistleblowing procedure drafted in September 2024 may not reflect a subsequent restructuring, 30 new hires or a new billing model.
3. Departments apply different standards. One manager sets a 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. schedule for a B2B contractor; another lets a contractor organize their own work. The contracts are identical, but the arrangements are not.
4. No one checks implementation. Internal audits, where they exist, may not cover employment practices or compare written rules with what happens day to day.

What an inspection or due diligence review examines

A PIP inspector, labor court or investor conducting due diligence may compare policies and contracts with managers’ answers, working time records, emails, and reporting and billing arrangements. The question is not merely whether a document exists. It is whether the organization operates as the document says it does.

According to the Chief Labor Inspector’s 2025 report, PIP carried out more than 57,000 inspections, examined 48,677 civil-law contracts and challenged 2,119 of them as having been concluded in circumstances characteristic of employment.

The 2026 PIP reform and B2B arrangements

The Act of March 11, 2026 amending the National Labor Inspectorate Act (Journal of Laws 2026, item 473) was signed by the President on April 2, 2026 and published on April 7, 2026. Its main provisions have applied since July 8, 2026, according to the Public Employment Services. This is an enacted reform, not a proposal.

The inspector’s decision-making power

Since July 8, 2026, a district labor inspector may issue an administrative decision establishing an employment relationship if the actual arrangement meets the criteria in Article 22 § 1 of the Polish Labor Code.

The process described in the reform has two stages:

1. The inspector issues an instruction to remedy the violation.
2. If that instruction is not followed, the inspector may seek issuance of a decision.

Before a decision is issued, the parties can agree on a solution: enter into an employment contract or change how they work together. A decision can be appealed to a labor court, and filing the appeal suspends its enforcement until the court rules (gov.pl).

Indicators that an arrangement may be employment

PIP identifies factors that may point to an employment relationship:

The Polish Supreme Court emphasized in case III USK 324/23 that all the circumstances must be assessed together, rather than treating one feature as decisive. Issuing invoices or being registered in CEIDG, Poland’s register of sole proprietors, does not by itself determine the nature of the relationship.

Potential financial consequences

If a civil-law arrangement is challenged as a sham, potential consequences include:

1. Outstanding ZUS contributions. ZUS is Poland’s social insurance institution. Arrears may cover pension, disability, health and accident insurance, as well as contributions to the Labor Fund and Guaranteed Employee Benefits Fund for the period of the arrangement.
2. Outstanding PIT advance payments. PIT is Polish personal income tax; the employer, as withholding agent, is responsible for tax that was not withheld.
3. Late-payment interest. The Tax Ordinance provides for interest on arrears (podatki.gov.pl).
4. Civil claims. A person reclassified as an employee may seek annual leave, overtime pay, cash equivalents and severance payments.
5. PIP sanctions. These may include financial penalties and fines for offenses against employee rights.

The amount depends on the length of the arrangement, payments made and the contractor’s insurance status. For long-running, high-value B2B contracts, the sums may reach hundreds of thousands of Polish zlotys.

Contact us if you need to assess how your contracting arrangements operate in practice.

Whistleblowing, mobbing and discrimination: where procedures are tested

A whistleblowing procedure must work when a report arrives

Poland’s Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) provides for sanctions for specific violations under Articles 54–58:

The fine for a missing procedure may appear modest. The larger operational question is what happens when someone tries to report a concern.

Imagine that a written procedure exists, but employees do not know the reporting channel. Their manager does not understand their role; no one is designated to handle reports; and there is no follow-up process or workable feedback timetable. The Act requires feedback within three months. In the scenario described by the source, the company risks an allegation of obstructing a report under Article 54, which carries a potential penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. The practical test is whether people can use the system—not whether a procedure has been filed.

The revised definition of mobbing

The Act of June 19, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) simplified the Polish employment-law definition of mobbing. It is based on persistent harassment and no longer requires proof of:

1. prolonged conduct;
2. a diminished assessment of professional competence;
3. humiliation or isolation; or
4. a particular health outcome.

Conduct is assessed through the so-called reasonable victim model. The burden of proof in mobbing cases remains with the employee, but the simplified definition lowers the formal threshold for raising a claim.

Discrimination claims have a different evidentiary approach: under Article 18³b § 1 of the Labor Code, once an employee has made unequal treatment plausible, the employer must demonstrate objective reasons.

The duty to prevent mobbing remains in Article 94 point 2b of the Labor Code. An anti-mobbing policy alone does not establish that the employer has fulfilled it. What matters is the response in practice: who receives an allegation, how it is recorded, who is informed and what action follows.

The shared operational weakness

Across whistleblowing, mobbing and discrimination, three problems recur:

1. Managers do not know how to respond to a report, allegation or conflict.
2. There is no short response pathway identifying who receives the information, how it is documented, who must be informed and how the people involved will be contacted.
3. Separate policies have been added over time without being made into a coherent operating system.

An HR compliance risk map: what to check first

You do not need to review the entire organization at once. Start where the legal and operational exposure is greatest, then expand.

Highest-priority risks

Medium-priority risks

How to close the gap without stopping the business

Act now

1. Inventory employment and contracting arrangements. For every B2B or mandate-contract engagement, ask: who gives instructions, who sets the hours and place of work, and who checks the results? Flag cases requiring a change to the contract or to actual practice.
2. Compare five HR processes with the documents. Use onboarding, changes to terms, working time, remote work and offboarding as a starting point. Ask managers what they actually do and record where this differs from policy.
3. Assign owners and deadlines to the risk map. Every identified gap needs a person responsible for addressing it and a target date.
4. Test the whistleblowing procedure. Work through a sample report: can a worker find the channel, who receives the report, when is feedback provided and how is follow-up documented?
5. Write a one-page conflict response pathway. Set out who receives a mobbing or unequal-treatment allegation, how they document it, who they notify and how communication with those involved is handled. Keep it usable.

Plan the next stage

6. Train managers on high-risk decisions. Identify five or six recurring decisions—such as changing terms, ending an arrangement, responding to conflict, organizing remote work and conducting appraisals. Give managers practical checklists rather than expecting them to work from legal provisions.
7. Update documents in stages. Address the critical gaps in the risk map first, then revise lower-priority templates and policies.
8. Conduct pre-due diligence before a funding round. Prepare explanations for investors before questions arrive through the data room. Key red flags include B2B arrangements carried out under Article 22 Labor Code conditions; contracts that conflict with practice; problems with employee monitoring documentation; and retention of applicant data without a legal basis. UODO is Poland’s personal data protection authority.

Make the system sustainable

9. Schedule recurring HR compliance reviews. Review practices every 6–12 months or after a significant increase in headcount. Revisit procedures when law, technology or organizational strategy changes. A short checklist is more useful than a lengthy report no one acts on.
10. Confirm that people know the procedures. New employees and contractors should acknowledge the rules, for example by signing an appropriate document. Training, particularly during onboarding, is part of implementation—not just a formality.

How we can help

A gap between documents and practice cannot be resolved by drafting one more policy. It calls for a diagnosis, clear priorities and changes that fit the way the business operates.

Our HR compliance work follows three stages:

1. Diagnosis and risk map. We review employment and contracting arrangements, HR processes and documentation, then compare them with actual practice. The output is a prioritized risk map with estimated consequences and decisions to make.

2. Audit and remediation plan. We assess contracts, workplace rules, policies and procedures. We identify what needs correction or replacement and what can remain. The plan sets out steps, deadlines and owners.

3. Implementation and manager training. We develop management checklists, train teams on high-risk decisions and help establish recurring reviews. The aim is a consistent standard across the organization and better management control of employment-related risk.

We consider employment law alongside the business context, including ownership structure, growth plans and intellectual property, so people-related decisions support the company’s direction. Contact us to discuss your situation.

Put practice in order before an inspection tests it

The PIP reform is in force, the definition of mobbing has been simplified and the whistleblowing procedure requirement has applied since 2024. Each makes the same practical question important: does your company do what its documents say it does?

You can begin without auditing everything at once. Review the highest-risk arrangements and processes, assign responsibility for gaps and expand the review in stages. If you need support with a risk assessment, an audit of documents and practice, or preparation for a PIP inspection or investor due diligence, contact us.

Frequently asked questions

Will our B2B contracts withstand a PIP inspection, and how can we tell?

Since July 8, 2026, a district labor inspector may issue a decision establishing an employment relationship. Article 22 § 1 of the Labor Code requires an assessment of the arrangement as a whole, including direction and control, working time and place, personal performance and integration into the organization. Compare each contract with what happens: who gives instructions, who sets the schedule and whether the contractor can appoint a substitute. A contract label or invoices will not determine the outcome if the actual arrangement meets the conditions for employment.

We already have policies. Why review what managers do?

PIP, labor courts and investors conducting due diligence may test whether those policies reflect reality. Remote work rules that do not describe how work is organized may not protect the company in a dispute. An anti-mobbing policy managers do not know does not, by itself, demonstrate compliance with Article 94 point 2b of the Labor Code. A practice review identifies gaps before someone else does.

Who handles a whistleblower report if one arrives today?

Your procedure should identify the reporting channel, the person or body handling the report, the follow-up process and the feedback timetable. The Whistleblower Protection Act requires feedback within three months. If those elements do not work in practice, the company risks an allegation that it obstructed reporting under Article 54 of the Act, which carries a potential penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. Test the process with a sample scenario.

Where should we start if we cannot fund a full HR review now?

Inventory B2B, mandate-contract and employment arrangements. Then compare five HR processes with the relevant documents, record discrepancies and assign owners and deadlines. This can begin with a few hours involving HR and managers. Update documents in stages, starting with the highest-risk areas.

Who is responsible when a manager makes a poor employment decision?

Responsibility operates at several levels: supervisors monitor day-to-day compliance, HR communicates procedures and enforces them, and management responds to violations. In litigation or a PIP inspection, the company as employer is responsible for its managers’ decisions. Training and practical checklists help reduce errors across the organization.

Will stronger procedures slow us down?

The goal is not to make every decision rigid. It is to replace conflicting departmental practices with a common standard. A manager equipped with a usable checklist can often decide more quickly than one who must ask HR or legal for guidance each time. The system should support growth, not block it.