Workplace Mobbing in Poland: Will Your Reporting Procedure Work When a Manager Is Named?
An employee has been left out of team discussions for weeks and is not receiving the information needed to do their job. They believe their direct manager is responsible. When they open the company’s anti-mobbing procedure, they find one instruction: “Submit reports to your direct manager.”
This is a practical problem for businesses operating in Poland, particularly technology, SaaS, and services companies with flat teams and small HR functions. A procedure written once and stored on a shared drive may appear adequate—until a report concerns the person designated to receive it.
An amendment to Poland’s Labor Code dated June 19, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) takes effect on November 5, 2026. Under the amendment, employers will need to demonstrate that they took preventive action against mobbing. Simply having a document on file will not be enough.
This article explains where reporting procedures commonly fail and the four organizational decisions to make before a report arrives.
Key Polish concepts
| Term | Meaning in this article |
|---|---|
| Anti-mobbing procedure | Internal company rules for reporting and handling alleged workplace mobbing: who receives a report, who gathers information, and who decides what happens next. Mobbing is the term used in the Polish Labor Code; this article also refers to it as workplace bullying. |
| 2026 Labor Code amendment | The June 19, 2026 act amending the Labor Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. It expands employers’ obligations concerning prevention, detection, response, remedial action, and support for people affected by mobbing (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046). |
| Need-to-know principle | Information about a report is limited to people who need it to handle the case. Others should not be told that a report has been made. |
| Anti-mobbing committee | A group conducting the fact-finding process. It may be internal, external, or mixed. The Labor Code does not prescribe its composition or form. |
| Burden of proof | The amendment provides that, once an employee has made mobbing plausible, the employer will have to show that mobbing did not occur and that preventive measures were taken (Sejm legislative paper No. 2289). |
Why a procedure can fail when it is needed most
Many procedures are built around a straightforward case: an employee reports a colleague, their manager receives the report, and HR handles the matter. The difficulty arises when the report concerns someone responsible for that process.
| Scenario | Person named as the source of the problem | Why the procedure fails |
|---|---|---|
| A | The employee’s direct manager | The procedure sends the report to the person it concerns. |
| B | The HR representative responsible for investigations | HR cannot impartially handle a case in which its designated representative is a party. |
| C | A designated substitute who reports to the person named | A substitute exists on paper, but the reporting relationship undermines impartiality. |
Each scenario leaves the employee without a credible route for reporting. A company may then mistake a lack of reports for a lack of problems.
The same design principle is familiar from other reporting systems, including whistleblowing channels: a person receiving a report should not be someone it may concern, that person’s subordinate, or someone connected to the disputed decision. Retaliation against a reporting employee likewise undermines trust in the channel.
What the 2026 Labor Code amendment changes
The June 19, 2026 act (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) takes effect on November 5, 2026. Employers then have six months—until May 5, 2027—to adapt their workplace regulations or issue separate regulations setting out preventive rules and procedures. Workplace regulations are an internal employment rulebook used by Polish employers (National Labor Inspectorate guidance).
The following changes matter particularly for reporting procedures:
| Change | Practical effect for an employer |
|---|---|
| The requirement that mobbing be “long-term” is removed, while the requirement of “persistence” remains—covering repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct. | Conduct need not continue for months before it can be assessed as mobbing. |
| Employers’ obligations expand to prevention, detection, response, remedial action, and support for victims. | A procedure must work in practice, not merely exist on paper. |
| A planned shift in the burden of proof follows once an employee has made mobbing plausible. | The employer will need to demonstrate real preventive action, including an accessible and credible reporting process. |
| The definition extends to conduct involving instructing or encouraging others to engage in mobbing. | Responsibility may concern not only the direct actor but also someone who tolerated or ordered the conduct. |
Sources: Sejm legislative paper No. 2289 and the Polish Civil Service’s explanation of the new provisions.
Do not confuse the two dates. The substantive mobbing provisions apply from November 5, 2026. May 5, 2027 is the deadline for formally updating or issuing the relevant regulations—not a date for beginning preventive action. If a report arrives on November 6, 2026 and your procedure has no alternative reporting route, the later document deadline will not solve that problem.
Four decisions to make before a report arrives
The Polish Labor Code does not prescribe a particular anti-mobbing committee model or statutory grounds for excluding its members. Employers therefore need to design a workable process themselves.
1. Who receives a report if the usual recipient is named?
Specify an alternative reporting channel by naming a person or identifying a role. “In the event of a conflict of interest, refer the report to another person” is too vague unless employees can tell exactly where to send it.
| Company size | Possible arrangement |
|---|---|
| 20–50 employees; one-person HR function | Designate a management board member or an external lawyer as the alternative recipient. |
| 50–150 employees | Designate another HR representative or someone in a different department who is independent of the person named. |
| More than 150 employees | Consider an external ad hoc committee appointed by the employer; the Labor Code permits this model. |
The channel should suit the organization’s size. In a smaller company, a paper or in-person route may be appropriate; an electronic channel is not always necessary. At least one route must preserve confidentiality.
2. Who gathers facts, and who decides what to do?
Treat these as separate stages, handled by different people or teams:
- Fact-finding: a committee or designated person interviews those involved, reviews documents, and establishes what the available information shows.
- Decision-making: a more senior body decides on appropriate next steps, which may include changes to working arrangements, mediation, disciplinary consequences, or further proceedings.
One compliance model has a designated unit assess reports while the management board decides on measures. If a report concerns a management board member, the supervisory board makes the decision. A comparable separation can be used in an anti-mobbing procedure.
An internal investigation is not intended to deliver a court judgment on whether mobbing occurred. It should gather enough information to support appropriate decisions.
3. Who can access information about the report?
Apply the need-to-know principle. Disclose the identities and other information concerning those involved only where access is necessary to handle the case, and require everyone with access to maintain confidentiality.
The procedure should specify:
- Who gathers information and where it is stored.
- Who may access the investigation records.
- How information is restricted—for example, through separate document storage, limited folder permissions, and no circulation of the report by email to uninvolved staff.
- How long records are retained. The Labor Code does not specify a retention period for anti-mobbing files. Set one with regard to limitation periods for claims and evidentiary needs, alongside applicable GDPR requirements.
4. Who must step aside from the case?
Because the Labor Code does not set exclusion rules for anti-mobbing committee members, put conflict-of-interest and recusal rules in your internal procedure. As a minimum:
- The person identified as responsible for the alleged conduct must not participate in handling the case.
- A manager or subordinate of either party must not conduct the investigation.
- A person connected to either party—for example, through a personal relationship or shared project—must disclose the potential conflict.
- Someone independent of the committee must consider a request for recusal.
- The recusal decision must be documented.
Internal rules published by Polish public bodies provide examples of such mechanisms.
Contact us if you would like help reviewing your procedure against the amendment.
Can the whistleblowing channel also receive mobbing reports?
Not automatically. Poland’s Act of June 14, 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) covers a specified catalog of legal violations. Mobbing as a violation of employment law is not automatically included. A report may be handled under that framework if:
- Mobbing is expressly included in Article 3 of the Whistleblower Protection Act;
- the conduct also violates another rule within the act’s catalog, such as a prohibition on discrimination; or
- the employer has voluntarily extended its internal procedure to include mobbing reports.
The operational task is to tell employees which route to use and ensure that those receiving reports know how to classify them.
| Your current arrangement | What to check |
|---|---|
| Separate whistleblowing and anti-mobbing channels | Make sure reports do not disappear into two disconnected systems. Employees should know where to report each concern. |
| One channel for all reports | Check that it gives reporting people comparable protection and that handlers can distinguish between the two types of report. |
| No channel yet | Consider an integrated system, but clearly distinguish whistleblower reports from anti-mobbing reports. |
Without that distinction, a company risks misclassifying reports and applying protection against retaliation incorrectly. See the Polish government’s whistleblower questions and answers.
Anti-mobbing procedure checklist
Before rewriting documents, answer these questions. A “no” or “I don’t know” identifies a place to start.
| No. | Question | Yes / No |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Is there an alternative reporting route when a report concerns a manager or HR? | |
| 2 | Is the alternative recipient identified by name or role? | |
| 3 | Are there recusal rules for people connected to those involved? | |
| 4 | Are fact-finding and decisions on further action assigned to separate people or teams? | |
| 5 | Does the procedure say who can access information, where records are kept, and how need-to-know access works? | |
| 6 | Do employees know which reporting routes are available and where to find them—in the intranet, onboarding materials, or workplace regulations? | |
| 7 | Do managers know what to do in the first 48 hours after receiving a report about their own manager? | |
| 8 | Is the procedure coordinated with the whistleblowing channel, and do employees know which route to use? | |
| 9 | Does it address GDPR requirements, including the basis for processing, record retention, and the rights of the person named? | |
| 10 | Does it address the 2026 Labor Code amendment’s requirements concerning prevention, detection, response, and remedial action? |
What are the risks if the procedure does not work?
Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code requires employers to counteract mobbing, but it does not establish a separate fine for failing to have a formal procedure (Labor Code, Journal of Laws 2025, item 277). That does not make an ineffective procedure risk-free.
| Risk | What it means |
|---|---|
| Evidence | Without a working procedure, it is harder to show that the employer counteracted mobbing. Following the amendment, the employer will need to prove it took preventive measures. |
| Compensation for harm to health | Under Article 94³ § 3 of the Labor Code, an employee whose health has been affected by mobbing may seek monetary compensation for that harm. |
| Damages | Under Article 94³ § 4, damages are no less than the minimum wage where an employee has experienced mobbing or terminated their employment contract because of it. |
| External escalation | An employee who lacks a credible internal route may complain to Poland’s National Labor Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, or PIP) or bring a claim before a labor court. |
| Reputation and turnover | Employees may leave without reporting why. Few internal reports can create a false sense that there is no problem. |
By comparison, failure to implement a required whistleblowing procedure is treated as a punishable administrative violation. There is no equivalent automatic penalty for the absence of an anti-mobbing procedure, but the consequences in a dispute may be more serious.
Review the procedure before an inspector or court does
The 2026 amendment makes evidence of an effective response important. An employer needs more than a document: employees need a genuine reporting route; reports need to reach impartial people; sensitive information must remain controlled; and decisions should follow the facts gathered.
If your procedure offers only one recipient and no recusal mechanism, it may stop working precisely when a report concerns someone with authority over that process. Decide who takes over, who investigates, who can access the information, and who makes decisions before November 5, 2026.
To identify gaps and prepare the necessary documents before a report arrives, contact us.
Frequently asked questions
Who should take over if a report concerns a manager or management board member?
Name an alternative recipient or role in the procedure. In a company with one HR representative, that may be a management board member, someone in another department, or an external lawyer. If a management board member is named, the supervisory board or someone independent of the management board should decide on further steps. The Labor Code does not mandate one model, but failing to designate an alternative can stall a case at intake.
Must the alternative channel be external?
No. The Labor Code does not require an external channel. Another employee can receive the report if they are independent of the person named. Where reporting relationships limit the options, particularly in a company of 20–50 employees, consider an external ad hoc committee appointed by the employer. The National Labor Inspectorate discusses this approach.
When must documents be updated?
The substantive provisions take effect on November 5, 2026. The deadline to formally adapt workplace regulations or issue separate regulations is May 5, 2027. The later deadline will not remedy a reporting procedure that fails when a case arises in November 2026.
Can one channel handle both mobbing and whistleblower reports?
Yes, if it provides comparable protection for the person reporting and clearly distinguishes the two types of report. Mobbing is not automatically covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act; the conduct may fall within a listed category, or the employer may voluntarily extend its internal procedure. Handlers need to classify reports correctly.
How can we document an investigation without breaching the GDPR?
The source identifies Article 6(1)(c) GDPR—processing needed for the legal obligation under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code—or Article 6(1)(f) GDPR, the employer’s legitimate interest, as bases for processing personal data in anti-mobbing proceedings. If records contain health data, an additional condition under Article 9(2) GDPR is needed. Set a retention period with regard to limitation periods for claims, restrict access to case handlers, and require confidentiality (GDPR text on EUR-Lex).
What if the investigation cannot establish whether mobbing occurred?
An internal investigation need not deliver a verdict. Document what could and could not be established, then take steps proportionate to the available information. These might include changes to work organization, mediation, monitoring, or disciplinary action where supported by the facts. Keep fact-finding separate from the decision on what to do next.
