Workplace Bullying in Poland: What Employers Should Prepare for by November 2026
“We don’t have workplace bullying here”—until the first report arrives. From November 5, 2026, an amended definition of mobbing, the term used in Poland’s Labor Code for workplace bullying, takes effect. The separate requirement that the conduct be prolonged is removed, the minimum compensation for non-material harm increases, and employers must systematically counteract mobbing through prevention, detection, response, remediation, and support.
If you run a technology business in Poland, manage a growing team, or oversee HR for a Polish operation, the changes affect both day-to-day management and internal procedures. The immediate question is not just whether you have a policy, but whether it will work when someone makes a report.
Key Polish terms
| Term | Meaning in this article |
|---|---|
| Mobbing (Article 94³ of the Polish Labor Code) | Persistent harassment of an employee: conduct that is repeated, recurring, or continuous. From November 5, 2026, “prolonged” conduct is no longer a separate requirement. |
| Persistence | The feature that distinguishes a repeated, recurring, or continuous pattern from an isolated incident. |
| Systematically counteracting mobbing | The employer’s ongoing obligation, covering prevention, detection, response, remediation, and support. |
| Compensation for non-material harm (zadośćuczynienie) | A monetary payment for harm such as suffering or an infringement of dignity. From November 5, 2026, the stated minimum is six times the Polish minimum wage. |
| Internal investigation (postępowanie wyjaśniające) | The process for examining a report, including who receives it, who investigates, and who decides what happens next. |
What changes on November 5, 2026
The Act of June 19, 2026 amending the Labor Code and the Code of Civil Procedure (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) introduces changes to the definition of mobbing, employee claims, and employers’ internal obligations.
A new definition without a separate duration requirement
The previous wording of Article 94³ of the Labor Code referred to “persistent and prolonged harassment or intimidation.” Under the amended wording, mobbing is persistent harassment of an employee. Persistence means that the conduct is repeated, recurring, or continuous; an employer can no longer rely on a separate “prolonged” requirement.
The amendment gives a non-exhaustive list of conduct that may be relevant:
- Humiliation
- Unjustified criticism
- Demeaning or ridiculing an employee
- Isolating an employee
- Obstructing work, communication, or access to information needed to perform tasks
The form of communication does not determine whether harassment can occur. Conduct may take place in person, by email, through a messaging platform, or during a video meeting (Polish National Labor Inspectorate—new provisions).
What falls outside the definition
The amendment also draws boundaries that matter to managers:
- Isolated conduct does not meet the definition of mobbing because it lacks persistence, even if it infringes an employee’s personal rights.
- Justified criticism of work, expressed appropriately, and holding an employee accountable for assigned tasks do not constitute mobbing.
Managers can therefore address performance and give substantive feedback. The justification for the criticism and the manner in which it is delivered both matter.
Compensation and court claims
| Issue | Through November 4, 2026 | From November 5, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum compensation for non-material harm | 1 × the minimum wage | 6 × the minimum wage |
| Need to demonstrate a health disorder | Yes | No |
| Employee identifies mobbing rather than discrimination, or vice versa | Risk that the claim will be dismissed | The court will not dismiss it solely on that basis if the facts support a claim under another legal ground |
Using the 2025 gross minimum wage of PLN 4,666 as an illustration, six times that amount is approximately PLN 28,000, compared with approximately PLN 4,666 at one times the minimum wage. These are illustrations based on the 2025 rate, not a statement of the minimum wage in 2026. There is no statutory upper limit on compensation for non-material harm; the court assesses the amount (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046).
The Code of Civil Procedure amendment also means that an employee will not lose a case solely because the claim labels the facts “mobbing” instead of “discrimination,” or the reverse. The court will assess the facts and apply the appropriate legal basis.
The employer’s obligation: Five functions, not a policy on a shelf
Amended Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code requires employers to systematically counteract mobbing. Adopting a policy once is not the same as operating a process continuously.
| Function | What it can involve | Evidence that it operates |
|---|---|---|
| Prevention | Training, clear communication rules, a feedback culture | Training records, signed acknowledgments, schedules |
| Detection | A reporting channel, team conversations, early warning signs | Channel documentation, records of conversations, workplace climate surveys |
| Response | Receiving a report and starting an internal investigation | Records of reports, designated people, timelines |
| Remediation | Adjusting working conditions, taking action concerning the person responsible, improving processes | Decisions, notes, organizational changes |
| Support | Psychological support, protection against retaliation, monitoring what happens afterward | Records of support and follow-up |
Employers must set out their anti-mobbing rules in the workplace regulations (regulamin pracy) or in separate regulations. The Polish National Labor Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, or PIP) indicates that a procedure should address at least how complaints are made, who receives them, investigative steps, the composition of an investigation committee, deadlines, written records, document storage, and how the reporting person is informed (PIP—new provisions).
Match the process to the size of the operation
Polish law does not set separate anti-mobbing thresholds based on headcount. The following are practical organizational examples, not statutory categories:
| Approximate company size | Practical organizational approach |
|---|---|
| 20 employees | Designate a person to receive reports and adopt brief written rules explaining the process. |
| 100 employees | Use a formal process with an investigation committee, at least two reporting channels, and recurring training. |
| 500 employees | Consider an ongoing compliance function, multiple reporting channels, measurable risk management, and internal audits. |
Even a well-written document does not show that these functions operate in practice. In data cited by PIP, 70% of employees at companies with an anti-mobbing policy reported that they received no meaningful support from their employer (PIP—“Mobbing is violence”).
The risks of being unprepared
Financial exposure
The employer is liable for mobbing regardless of who directly engaged in the conduct. Potential costs include:
- Compensation for non-material harm: at least six times the minimum wage from November 5, 2026—approximately PLN 28,000 when illustrated using the 2025 minimum wage—with no statutory upper limit.
- Damages for actual financial loss: with no statutory minimum identified in the source.
- Court costs and legal fees.
- Management and HR time diverted to the matter.
For context, in judgment I PK 165/13, Poland’s Supreme Court accepted compensation for non-material harm of PLN 30,000—three times the claimant’s salary—before the increase in the stated minimum (Supreme Court judgment I PK 165/13).
Operational and reputational exposure
A reporting process can fail at the first practical hurdle: no one knows who formally receives a complaint, or the complaint concerns the person responsible for receiving it or that person’s supervisor. The organization then has to improvise while managing an impartiality problem.
There is a different management risk, too. Managers who believe any firm feedback could be called mobbing may stop addressing performance. Training needs to explain both sides of the boundary: how to respond to harassment and how to give justified, appropriately expressed criticism.
A case that becomes known internally or appears on employer-review sites can also affect recruitment and retention. For technology businesses competing for specialists, that can directly affect the ability to build a team.
What PIP complaint data shows
| Year | Complaints to PIP alleging mobbing | Found justified | Found unfounded | Could not be determined |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2,278 | — | — | — |
| 2023 | 1,771 | 104 | 426 | 1,231 |
| 2024, through December 10 | 1,683 | — | — | — |
The low share of complaints clearly classified as mobbing by inspectors does not establish that the underlying problems do not exist. It illustrates how difficult allegations can be to establish without documentation—a difficulty that can affect both employees and employers (PIP—“Mobbing is violence”).
Remote and hybrid teams: Exclusion can happen online
The amended definition recognizes that harassment can occur regardless of the communication method. In a distributed team, isolation or exclusion from digital communications may therefore be relevant to a mobbing assessment.
Examples that may warrant examination include:
- Repeatedly leaving an employee off invitations to online meetings
- Deliberately excluding an employee from team messaging channels
- Systematically withholding information needed to do the job
- Making demeaning public comments about performance during video meetings
These examples are not automatic findings of mobbing. A one-off incident, or an action justified by how work is organized, does not meet the stated persistence requirement. Each case must be assessed on its facts (Labor Code, consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2025, item 277).
Anti-mobbing reports and whistleblower channels
Poland’s Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) neither requires nor prohibits an employer from using the same technical channel for mobbing reports and whistleblower reports.
As an infringement of an individual employee’s rights, mobbing is generally outside the scope of that Act. The distinction changes if mobbing constitutes retaliation against someone who previously made a whistleblower report: in that situation, the Act’s protections apply (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau—whistleblower materials).
If you use one technical channel, keep the legal processes distinct:
- Provide separate report categories for mobbing and whistleblower matters.
- Document the initial classification, including who decides which regime applies.
- Maintain separate follow-up steps where the two procedures impose different requirements.
- Tell the reporting person which legal regime protects them.
GDPR considerations in an internal investigation
An investigation will involve personal data about the reporting employee, the person accused, and potentially witnesses. The employer’s duty under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code provides a basis, as described in the approved source, for processing ordinary personal data under Article 6(1)(c) GDPR (legal obligation) or Article 6(1)(f) GDPR (legitimate interests). Special-category data, such as health information, requires an additional condition under Article 9(2) GDPR.
| GDPR issue | What to establish |
|---|---|
| Legal basis | Article 6(1)(c) or (f) GDPR for ordinary personal data; an Article 9(2) GDPR condition for special-category data |
| Confidentiality | Limit access to people needed for the investigation, taking account of Articles 5(1)(c) and 32 GDPR |
| Information notices | Address Articles 13 or 14 GDPR for participants in the investigation |
| Retention | Keep records no longer than necessary, considering limitation periods for employment claims |
| Opportunity to respond | Allow the person accused to respond to the allegations without disclosing the full report or witnesses’ details |
There is no uniform retention period for anti-mobbing investigation records confirmed by Poland’s data protection authority, UODO. Set an internal period with relevant claim limitation periods in mind.
Start with a three-step internal review
You may not need to replace your existing procedure. First, test whether it would function when a real report arrives.
1. Gather the documents
Bring together the workplace regulations, any applicable collective bargaining agreement, internal reporting rules, and anti-mobbing policy. Check that they are consistent and that the definition of mobbing reflects the amended provision.
2. Identify who does what
Answer these questions in writing, naming the person responsible and a substitute for each role:
- Who receives a report? What happens if it concerns that person?
- Who investigates? Can that person act impartially—for example, if they report to the person accused?
- Who decides the next steps, and by when?
3. Record gaps, owners, and deadlines
A gap list is often more useful than immediately drafting a new policy:
| Example gap | Decision owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| No designated person to receive reports | CEO / Head of People | To be set |
| Definition in the regulations does not reflect the amended wording | HR and legal adviser | Before November 5, 2026 |
| No route for a report concerning a management board member | Management board and legal adviser | To be set |
| No manager training on criticism versus harassment | HR / learning and development | To be set |
Give managers a workable boundary for feedback
The amendment states that justified criticism of work, expressed appropriately, and holding employees accountable for assigned tasks are not mobbing. That does not make the manner of feedback irrelevant. The following examples show the distinction managers should learn to apply:
| Appropriate performance management | Conduct that creates risk |
|---|---|
| Substantive feedback about work results | Ridiculing an employee’s delays in a team meeting |
| Reviewing specific, previously agreed goals | Repeatedly questioning competence without justification |
| Identifying errors and proposing corrections | Withholding information needed to complete a task |
| Discussing unmet expectations one-to-one | Systematically excluding an employee from project communications |
Training line managers with scenarios drawn from your own operation is a practical step to take before November 5, 2026.
How legal support can help
Reviewing an anti-mobbing procedure before the first report can clarify responsibilities and reduce the need to make process decisions during an active case. Our support includes:
- Procedure audits: comparing current documents with amended Article 94³ of the Labor Code and identifying gaps.
- Policy and reporting-channel design: tailoring the process to the business, including whether to share a technical channel with whistleblower reporting.
- Manager training: using organizational scenarios to address feedback, first responses to reports, and documentation.
- Internal investigations: providing an external, impartial committee or supporting an internal committee.
We approach employment-law decisions in the context of the company’s ownership structure, growth plans, and management model. To discuss a review, training, or an investigation process, contact us.
What to do before November 5, 2026
The amended definition removes the separate prolonged-conduct requirement but retains persistence. It raises the stated minimum compensation for non-material harm to six times the minimum wage and places emphasis on an employer process that covers prevention through support.
Do not wait for a report to test that process. Gather your documents, identify who receives, who investigates, and who decides, and give each gap an owner and a deadline. If you need help reviewing or designing the procedure, contact us.
Legal basis: Act of June 19, 2026 amending the Labor Code Act and the Code of Civil Procedure Act (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046), entering into force on November 5, 2026. This article is educational and is not legal advice. Consult a legal adviser about individual circumstances.
Frequently asked questions
We already have an anti-mobbing policy. Must we rewrite it from scratch?
No. Review it first. Check the definition against the amended wording—persistent harassment that is repeated, recurring, or continuous, without a separate prolonged-conduct requirement. Then check that the procedure identifies who receives reports, investigates, and decides. If those elements work, an update may be enough.
Could firm performance management expose a manager to a mobbing allegation?
An allegation is possible, but the amendment expressly excludes justified criticism expressed appropriately and accountability for assigned tasks from the definition. Substantive feedback delivered appropriately—for example, in a one-to-one conversation rather than through public ridicule—is not harassment. Repeated, unjustified, or humiliating criticism presents a different risk.
If conduct need not be prolonged, how short a pattern might qualify?
Persistence is still required: the conduct must be repeated, recurring, or continuous. A shorter but persistent pattern—for example, consistently isolating an employee from necessary information over several weeks—may meet the criteria. An isolated incident does not. Each case is assessed individually.
Who should receive reports in a 60-person company without a compliance department?
Designate a specific person, such as an HR representative or another trusted individual, and document the role. Provide a substitute for absence or conflicts of interest, including when a report concerns that person or their supervisor. A clear role, a confidential channel, and a written process can be sufficient without an elaborate structure.
Can mobbing and whistleblower reports use the same channel?
Yes. Polish law does not require or prohibit a shared technical channel. Provide distinct categories, document the initial legal classification, follow the applicable procedure, and explain the relevant protections to the reporter. Mobbing generally falls outside the Whistleblower Protection Act unless it is retaliation for an earlier whistleblower report.
What if we have a procedure but cannot use it effectively in the first case?
A procedure that exists only on paper offers limited protection. A labor court will examine whether the employer’s efforts were systematic across prevention, detection, response, remediation, and support. Missing training records, report records, decisions, or evidence of remedial action can make the employer’s position harder to defend. From November 5, 2026, the stated minimum compensation for non-material harm is six times the minimum wage without requiring the employee to demonstrate a health disorder.
