Workplace Bullying in Poland: Five Questions for Employers After the 2026 Labor Code Amendment
“We don’t have workplace bullying here” is a common response inside companies. It offers little protection if an employee describes a different experience and an inspector from Poland’s National Labor Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, or PIP) asks what the employer has done.
Since November 5, 2026, amended Article 94³ § 1 of the Polish Labor Code has required employers to systematically counteract mobbing—the term used in Polish employment law for workplace bullying. The provision identifies five areas: prevention, detection, appropriate response, remedial measures, and support for people affected. A general statement of zero tolerance is not enough.
If you manage a business with employees in Poland, oversee HR, or lead a Polish team, the five questions below can help you test whether your procedure works in practice. An answer of “partly” or “I don’t know” does not, by itself, establish a legal breach. It identifies work to do before a report arrives.
What changed on November 5, 2026?
The Act of June 19, 2026 amending the Labor Code and the Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 1046) was published on August 4, 2026 and entered into force on November 5, 2026, after a three-month period before commencement.
Previously, Article 94³ § 1 said only that an employer was obliged to counteract mobbing. The amended provision requires the employer to do so systematically, in particular through preventive measures, detection, an appropriate response, remedial measures, and support for people affected.
The words “in particular” make the list open-ended. These five areas are nevertheless a practical minimum that a company should be able to describe and assign to specific roles.
The definition of mobbing
The amendment removed the requirement that the conduct be prolonged. Previously, an employee had to show conduct that was both persistent and prolonged. Since November 5, 2026, persistence is sufficient: the conduct must be repeated, recurring, or continuous. Isolated incidents are expressly excluded from the definition of mobbing (PIP Katowice’s explanation of the amendment).
Minimum monetary redress
Since November 5, 2026, the minimum monetary redress for mobbing is six times the minimum wage. At the 2026 minimum wage of PLN 4,806, that gives a floor of PLN 28,836, regardless of the extent of the health impairment. A court may award more, depending on the circumstances (Polish Civil Service information on the new rules).
| Issue | Before November 5, 2026 | From November 5, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Employer’s duty | Counteract mobbing | Systematically counteract mobbing across five identified areas |
| Definition | Persistent and prolonged harassment | Persistent harassment: repeated, recurring, or continuous conduct |
| Isolated incidents | No express exclusion | Expressly excluded from the definition |
| Minimum monetary redress | No statutory minimum | Six times the minimum wage: PLN 28,836 in 2026 |
Five questions for your anti-mobbing procedure
For each question, choose yes, partly, or I don’t know. Treat the “partly” and “I don’t know” answers as a work plan, not a verdict on compliance.
1. Prevention: Does it continue beyond onboarding?
Question: Do you have a 12-month schedule of preventive activities, with an owner, dates, and formats?
The word “systematically” raises the standard. A single training session when an employee joins is not enough. Two years later, that employee may no longer remember how to report a concern.
Where a procedure can break down: A new hire receives anti-mobbing training in their first week. There are no reminders. When a troubling situation arises two years later, they do not know whom to contact.
What to do:
- Plan a 12-month cycle of training, internal communications, and reminders about reporting channels.
- Assign one person responsibility for carrying out the schedule and reporting on it.
- Record what happened: dates, attendance, and acknowledgments that employees received or read the materials.
2. Detection: Can managers act before a formal complaint?
Question: Do managers know what to do when they notice troubling signals in a team but nobody has filed a complaint?
Detection is not simply waiting for a report. It includes recognizing warning signs such as declining engagement, an employee becoming isolated, or repeated conflicts in the same team.
Where a procedure can break down: A manager hears about tensions in their team. No one has complained formally, and the procedure describes only what to do after a complaint. The manager does not know whether—or how—to act.
What to do:
- Specify three concrete steps a manager should take when a concern arises without a formal complaint, and set a deadline for them.
- Train managers to recognize early warning signs.
- Identify whom they should contact if they cannot assess the situation themselves.
3. Response: Who receives the report, investigates, and decides?
Question: Does a roles matrix identify who receives reports, who investigates, and who decides on the outcome—with named substitutes?
These functions should be separated. If one person receives a report, investigates it, and makes the decision, the impartiality of the process can be challenged and its value as evidence reduced.
Where a procedure can break down: A report concerns the head of HR, who normally handles these cases. There is no alternative route. The employee decides not to report internally, and the matter goes directly to PIP or a labor court.
What to do:
- Prepare a one-page roles matrix with named substitutes.
- Provide at least one reporting route that bypasses the employee’s direct manager.
- Adopt an exclusion rule: a person named in a report must not conduct or oversee the investigation.
| Function | Example lead | Example substitute |
|---|---|---|
| Receive a report | HR business partner | Compliance officer |
| Investigate | Internal committee or external law firm | Differently constituted committee |
| Decide on measures | Management board member | Another board member |
| Carry out remedial measures | HR and a more senior manager | HR and the management board |
4. Remedial measures: What happens after the investigation?
Question: Does your procedure require a remedial action plan after a case is closed, with a date to check whether the measures worked?
Establishing the facts does not, on its own, reduce the risk of a repeat. Remedial action is a separate stage: it needs a decision, an owner, and a review date, not just a final paragraph in an investigation record.
Where a procedure can break down: A company establishes what happened and closes the case without changing anything. Months later, a similar situation arises in the same team. The absence of earlier remedial measures weakens the employer’s position when another report is made.
What to do:
- Require a remedial action plan after every completed investigation.
- Set review points—for example, after three and six months.
- Document both the plan and the results of those reviews.
5. Support: What is available, and who approves it?
Question: Do you have a defined range of support for someone affected by mobbing, and does the procedure say who decides what to provide?
Support is a distinct area under the amended provision. The company needs to decide what assistance it can offer, who authorizes it, and on what terms.
Where a procedure can break down: Support is arranged case by case, depending on the employee’s position, relationship with HR, or the person making the decision. Unclear rules create a risk of unequal-treatment allegations.
What to do:
- Define available options, such as a transfer to another team, flexible working hours, access to psychological support, or mediation.
- Identify who can approve support and the process for doing so.
- Document the rules so decisions are not purely discretionary.
Documenting investigations and protecting personal data
Without a documentary record, an employer may struggle to show that it took real action. In judgment I PK 35/11, the Polish Supreme Court described the duty to counteract mobbing as a duty to take due care. What matters is genuine implementation: whether the procedure is accessible, the process is impartial, and the employer responds effectively to warning signs.
PIP recommends documenting:
- The report: its date, channel, content, and acknowledgment of receipt.
- Investigative steps: records of discussions with the parties and witnesses, and evidence collected.
- The decision: including the reasons for it.
- Remedial measures: including checks on whether they worked.
- Updates to the reporting person: information about the stages of the process.
GDPR considerations
The article identifies Article 6(1)(c) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), read with Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code, as the basis for processing ordinary personal data to fulfill the employer’s legal obligation (text of Regulation 2016/679).
| Issue | Recommended approach |
|---|---|
| Ordinary personal data | Article 6(1)(c) GDPR: compliance with a legal obligation |
| Health data under Article 9(1) | Article 9(2)(b), concerning employment-law obligations, or Article 9(2)(f), concerning legal claims—subject to necessity |
| Right of access under Article 15 GDPR | Do not treat it as a right to unredacted investigation files; protect witness and third-party data |
| Access to investigation files | Limit access to people handling the case and record each instance of access |
| Retention | The general period for employee records is 10 years under Article 94 point 9b of the Labor Code. Whether particular investigation files qualify as “employee records” requires a separate assessment |
Poland’s data protection authority (UODO) has not issued an official position directly addressing internal mobbing-investigation files. Set your documentation rules before the first report: what you collect, how you record it, and who can access it.
How the procedure relates to whistleblower reporting
The Act of June 14, 2024 on the Protection of Whistleblowers (Journal of Laws of 2024, item 928) includes breaches of labor law in the list in Article 3(1)(9). Mobbing is not listed as a separate category. A mobbing report may, however, also qualify as a whistleblower report if it identifies a labor-law breach covered by the Act.
The Act neither requires an anti-mobbing procedure to be integrated with a whistleblower channel nor prohibits a shared technical channel. A practical arrangement is one technical channel with two separate routes for assessing and handling reports. Assess each report individually: does it concern mobbing only, or does it also qualify as a whistleblower report?
Check that the two procedures do not leave gaps or create conflicting rules on confidentiality, feedback deadlines, or protection for the reporting person.
Quick internal-review checklist
Before commissioning an external legal review, mark each answer. Use “partly” and “I don’t know” to identify priorities.
| Diagnostic question | Yes | Partly | I don’t know |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a 12-month prevention schedule with an assigned owner? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Do managers know what to do with warning signs when no formal complaint has been made? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Does a roles matrix separate receipt, investigation, and decision-making, with substitutes? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Can employees report without going through their direct manager? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Does the procedure require a remedial action plan after an investigation? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Are there dates to review whether remedial measures worked, such as after three and six months? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Are support options and the person authorized to approve them identified? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Is the anti-mobbing procedure consistent with the whistleblower channel? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
| Are the rules for documenting an investigation—what to record, how, and who has access—settled? | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
A “partly” or “I don’t know” answer is not a finding of noncompliance. It shows where to start improving the rules before a report tests them.
How we can help
An anti-mobbing procedure is not a document to leave in a drawer. It must work under pressure: when a report arrives, roles need to be separated, or a manager receives a warning signal without a formal complaint.
We help technology businesses and growing organizations:
- Review existing procedures against the five areas in the Labor Code.
- Build roles matrices and reporting routes, including substitutes and exclusion rules.
- Design GDPR-compliant standards for documenting investigations.
- Check consistency between anti-mobbing procedures and whistleblower channels.
- Train managers to recognize warning signs and respond to reports.
We treat employment law as part of organizational management, not solely an HR matter. Our work connects Polish employment requirements with business changes such as team growth, reorganizations, and investor entry. If you need to update your procedure, contact us.
Free online webinar: “We Don’t Have Workplace Bullying Here” — November 18, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Using a fictional case, we will walk through what a company does after receiving a report: who receives it, how to preserve impartiality, what information to collect, and who decides the next steps. The session includes 45 minutes of presentation and 15 minutes of questions and answers. Participants will receive an internal-review checklist.
Frequently asked questions
Do we need to rewrite a long-standing anti-mobbing procedure?
Not necessarily from scratch. Check whether it covers all five areas: prevention, detection, response, remedial measures, and support. Add what is missing. If it consists mainly of one onboarding session and a reporting form, it needs more substantial work to meet the requirement for systematic action.
When did the new rules take effect?
The amendment entered into force on November 5, 2026, after publication on August 4, 2026 (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 1046). The rules are in force, and the period before commencement has passed. If your procedure has not been reviewed, address it as soon as possible.
Must a manager act if nobody has made a formal complaint?
Yes. Detection includes situations where warning signs arise without a complaint. The procedure should tell managers what steps to take, by when, and to whom they should escalate a matter they cannot assess themselves.
Who can investigate in a small company without a compliance team?
Separate receipt of the report, investigation, and decision-making. A small company can appoint an external party, such as a law firm, to investigate. The person named in the report should not conduct or supervise the case.
What if the report concerns a management board member or the head of HR?
Provide an alternative route that bypasses that person. If the head of HR normally handles investigations, another board member, a differently constituted committee, or an external party should take over. Without an alternative, an employee may bypass the internal process and go directly to PIP or a labor court.
What is the minimum monetary redress in a mobbing dispute?
Since November 5, 2026, the minimum is six times the minimum wage. Using the 2026 minimum wage of PLN 4,806, the floor is PLN 28,836. A court may award a higher amount depending on the case.
An internal review now can turn uncertain answers into assigned tasks—before an employee’s report, a PIP inspection, or a labor-court case tests the procedure. If you need legal support with the procedure, roles matrix, or manager training, contact us.
This article is for educational purposes and does not replace advice on a specific matter.
