Workplace Mobbing in Poland: Design a Reporting Process Employees Can Use
The most dangerous phrase in a company’s anti-mobbing policy may be “mobbing report.” An employee who is unsure whether their experience meets the legal definition may assume they must decide that question before speaking up. They report nothing—and the employer may first learn about the problem through a lawsuit.
Poland’s Act of June 19, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) changes the definition of mobbing, expands employers’ preventive obligations, and raises the minimum monetary award for non-material harm to six times the statutory minimum wage. The provisions take effect on November 5, 2026. Employers with at least 10 employees have until May 5, 2027 to bring their internal rules into compliance.
The operational problem starts earlier. An employee writes to HR: “I don’t know if this is mobbing, but something has been happening for three months and it’s wearing me down.” A policy that only accepts a formal allegation of mobbing may have no clear way to handle that message.
A workable process lets employees describe conduct without classifying it legally. It gathers facts before reaching a conclusion and provides a response even when the conduct falls below the legal threshold for mobbing.
Key Polish concepts
| Term | Meaning in this article |
|---|---|
| Mobbing | Under the new definition, persistent harassment of an employee: repeated, recurring, or ongoing conduct. A one-off incident does not meet that definition, even if it violates dignity (Article 94³ §§ 2–3 of the Polish Labor Code). |
| Persistence | The repeated, recurring, or ongoing character required for conduct to qualify as mobbing. |
| Anti-mobbing procedure | An employer’s internal rules or policy specifying the rules, procedures, and frequency of measures to counter mobbing. |
| Low-threshold reporting channel | A way to report facts without requiring the employee to identify a legal claim. |
| Impartiality test | A check that the person receiving or handling a report is not connected to the person named in it. |
“Mobbing” is used here as a term of Polish employment law, not as a general label for every instance of inappropriate workplace conduct.
What the 2026 Labor Code amendment changes
Definition and reporting implications
The amendment (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046) defines mobbing by reference to persistent harassment of an employee. Persistence means conduct that is repeated, recurring, or ongoing.
The Act gives examples of conduct, including:
- Humiliation and denigration
- Intimidation
- Undermining an employee’s professional competence
- Unjustified criticism and humiliation
- Ridicule
- Obstructing an employee’s ability to function within a team
- Isolating or excluding an employee from a team
An isolated incident—even one that infringes a person’s legally protected personal interests—does not constitute mobbing under the new definition.
That distinction should shape the reporting process. A policy must allow individual incidents to be recorded: incidents that appear minor separately may, together, show a persistent pattern. Requiring an employee to decide at the outset whether an incident “qualifies” as mobbing can cause the employer to miss that pattern.
Employer obligations and dates
| Item | Position described in the amendment |
|---|---|
| Entry into force | November 5, 2026, following publication on August 4, 2026 |
| Employers required to have an internal procedure | Those employing at least 10 people, through workplace regulations, a collective bargaining agreement, or another internal instrument |
| Deadline to adapt internal rules | May 5, 2027 |
| Smaller employers | Must inform employees of the applicable rules and procedures, without a requirement to adopt a formal internal instrument |
| Scope of measures | Prevention, detection, response, remedial action, and support for affected people |
Claims and financial exposure
The following distinction matters when assessing the employer’s exposure:
| Claim-related issue | Through November 4, 2026 | From November 5, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Monetary award for non-material harm (zadośćuczynienie) | Requires proof of a health disorder | Does not require proof of a health disorder |
| Minimum award for non-material harm | No statutory minimum | Six times the statutory minimum wage |
| Damages (odszkodowanie) | Minimum equals the statutory minimum wage | No change |
| Employer’s right of recourse | No express regulation | Right to seek reimbursement from the person responsible for the violation |
Sources: Polish government information on the new mobbing provisions and the Polish National Labor Inspectorate.
Removing the health-disorder requirement and introducing a substantially higher minimum award increases employers’ financial risk. An early, documented response to a report may help show that the employer fulfilled its obligation to counter mobbing—and may limit liability.
Why a formal “mobbing report” can discourage reporting
It asks employees to make a legal judgment
Employees can usually explain what was said or done. They should not have to decide whether those facts satisfy a statutory definition before contacting the employer.
A policy that begins with a formal “mobbing report” presents three unattractive choices:
- Call the conduct mobbing without knowing whether that is legally correct.
- Say nothing for fear of overreacting or making an unfair accusation.
- Wait for more incidents, losing the opportunity for early intervention.
Each outcome makes it harder for the employer to respond while the problem is still developing.
It invites premature conclusions
Suppose a manager responds to an initial concern by saying, “That definitely isn’t mobbing. Don’t overreact.” The employee may stop engaging, while the employer has created a record of dismissing the concern.
If this results in no genuine examination of the report or no appropriate response, it may be evidence that the employer failed to meet its obligation under Article 94³ § 1 of the Polish Labor Code. Announcing a conclusion before hearing those involved may also be treated as evidence that the process was merely superficial (Polish National Labor Inspectorate guidance).
It leaves isolated misconduct without a route to resolution
The new mobbing definition requires persistence. An isolated incident may therefore fall outside it while still violating an employee’s dignity. If the anti-mobbing policy simply closes such a case, the employee receives no meaningful response, and the employer risks losing trust and facing claims on a separate legal basis.
Four questions for the first conversation
Start with facts, not “Is this mobbing?” The person receiving the concern should ask:
| Question | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| What happened? | Specific words, gestures, or actions, recorded without prematurely adopting an interpretation. |
| When did it happen, and how often? | Whether the conduct appears isolated, repeated, recurring, or ongoing. |
| Who or what may corroborate it? | Potential witnesses and records, such as emails or messages. |
| Is the usual reporting route impartial? | Whether the person receiving the concern has a connection to the person named in it. |
One account will usually not be enough to assess the whole situation. These questions begin the inquiry; they do not replace any further fact-finding that may be needed.
What managers should not say
Line managers are often the first to hear a concern. In our experience advising technology companies, their initial response can be more consequential than the wording of the HR form. The policy should expressly warn against statements such as:
- “This definitely isn’t mobbing.” It reaches a conclusion before the facts are gathered.
- “Don’t overreact.” It dismisses the concern and discourages further reporting.
- “They didn’t mean any harm.” It assumes intent instead of examining conduct.
- “I promise it won’t happen again.” It makes a promise without a basis for doing so.
- “I won’t tell anyone.” It promises a level of secrecy the company may not be able to maintain.
If you need help designing an intake process, contact us.
Build an impartial alternative reporting route
A standard route may fail when a report concerns the designated recipient’s manager, the HR director who receives employee complaints, or another person with influence over the process. Employees may recognize the conflict before the employer does.
The person handling a report should not be the person whose conduct is reported, that person’s subordinate, or the person who made the decision being challenged. This principle is expressly discussed in commentary on whistleblowing rules and can be applied to an anti-mobbing procedure.
Specify an alternative recipient before a conflict arises:
| Alternative | Potential use | Condition to check |
|---|---|---|
| Another HR employee | A report concerning the employee’s direct manager | HR must not report to the person named in the report. |
| External law firm | A report concerning HR or a management board member | Provides an independent, confidential route. |
| Supervisory board member | A report concerning the CEO or a management board member | Available to companies with a supervisory board. |
| Compliance officer | An organization with compliance separate from HR | Responsibilities must be clearly divided. |
A startup or smaller company may only need to designate a specific person outside the direct management chain. The solution need not be a software platform. A clear instruction—“If the report concerns X, contact Y”—may be enough to make the route usable.
Respond even when the conduct is not mobbing
Fact-finding may establish that an incident was isolated and therefore lacks the persistence required for mobbing. That is not the same as finding that no action is needed.
An incident that violates dignity may give rise to separate claims for infringement of legally protected personal interests under Articles 23 and 24 of the Polish Civil Code, or for breach of the duty to respect an employee’s dignity under Article 11¹ of the Polish Labor Code.
The procedure should expressly explain what happens below the mobbing threshold:
- Identify possible measures: for example, a corrective conversation, mediation, a change in work organization, or training.
- Assign responsibility: specify who decides which measures are appropriate.
- Document the incident: it may become relevant to a pattern if conduct recurs.
- Inform the reporting employee: communicate the outcome and measures taken within a reasonable period.
A finding of “not mobbing” should not function as an automatic instruction to do nothing.
Coordinate anti-mobbing and whistleblowing channels
Neither procedure automatically takes priority
Poland’s Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928) does not list mobbing as a standalone category of legal violation. As a rule, a mobbing report is not “information about a breach of law” within the meaning of that Act. There is no provision giving either reporting procedure automatic priority over the other.
The routes may nevertheless overlap. A report might describe both mobbing and a violation within Article 3(1) of the Whistleblower Protection Act—for example, a personal data protection violation.
| What the report describes | Appropriate route |
|---|---|
| Mobbing-related conduct only | Anti-mobbing procedure |
| A breach within the Whistleblower Protection Act’s listed categories | Whistleblowing procedure |
| Mobbing-related conduct and a listed breach, such as a GDPR violation | Assess each element separately and coordinate both processes in parallel |
| A breach of internal rules | Depends on those rules; the channels may be integrated |
An employer may use one intake channel, provided it classifies and directs reports appropriately. The employee should not have to identify the legal basis. Internal coordination rules also cannot restrict statutory whistleblower protection or remove the duty to counter mobbing under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labor Code.
Document reports without collecting more data than needed
Apply GDPR to the case record
Intake notes, interview records, witness statements, and investigation findings involve the processing of personal data under the GDPR. Depending on the processing, the basis may be:
- Article 6(1)(c) GDPR: the employer’s legal obligation to counter mobbing.
- Article 6(1)(f) GDPR: legitimate interests in examining an allegation, protecting employees, and defending claims.
At intake, record sources and facts rather than conclusions:
| Record | Prefer | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Conduct | “On date X, Y said to Z: ‘…’” | “Y is a mobber.” |
| Source | “The reporting employee stated that…” | An assertion with no identified source. |
| Meeting details | Date and participants | An undated note with no participant record. |
| Legal assessment | No conclusion at the fact-gathering stage | “This is/is not mobbing.” |
| Person named | “The person named in the report” | “The perpetrator of mobbing.” |
Plan for access requests and restricted access
A person named in a report has a right of access under Article 15 GDPR. That does not automatically entitle them to the complete case file containing other people’s data: Article 15(4) GDPR must also be considered. An access request requires a document-by-document review and may require the reporting employee’s or witnesses’ data to be anonymized.
Limit access to case material to those who need it for their role—the need-to-know principle.
Set a reasoned retention period
The GDPR does not prescribe a specific retention period for mobbing case files. The period should follow a documented risk analysis and the applicable limitation periods for claims. Do not automatically select three or five years without doing that analysis.
A practical review checklist
Review the intake process before the November 5, 2026 effective date, while also planning for the May 5, 2027 deadline to adapt internal rules where applicable.
| Priority | Action |
|---|---|
| Essential process design | State plainly: “Report the conduct even if you do not know whether it is mobbing.” |
| Essential process design | Explain how the employer responds to conduct that falls below the mobbing threshold but violates dignity. |
| Essential documentation | Give intake staff standard first-conversation questions and a note template without a premature “legal assessment” field. |
| Essential conflict check | Name an alternative recipient or channel when the ordinary route is not impartial. |
| Recommended employee guidance | Provide a one-page explanation of where to report, what to describe, and what happens next. |
| Recommended training | Teach managers what not to say during the first conversation. |
| Recommended legal review | Check the anti-mobbing rules against the amendment and the whistleblowing procedure. |
| Useful operational test | Ask a team member to identify within 60 seconds where they would report inappropriate conduct. If they cannot, the route is not clear enough. |
How we can help
The 2026 amendment affects not only the legal definition of mobbing but also how a company should receive and act on early warnings from employees.
We help employers operating in Poland by:
- Reviewing anti-mobbing rules against the amendment, including whether employees can report facts without making a legal assessment.
- Designing low-threshold intake: first-conversation questions, note templates, impartiality checks, and employee guidance.
- Training managers and HR: how to receive a concern, what not to promise, how to document it, and when to escalate it.
We connect Polish employment-law advice with the organization’s business context, including its ownership structure, intellectual property, and growth plans. The aim is a workable process suited to the company, not a policy that remains unused.
Start by checking whether an employee can raise a concern without calling it mobbing. Confirm that an independent route exists for conflicts of interest. Then document the response: without a record, it is harder to show what the employer did.
For help reviewing your rules, designing a reporting process, or training your team, contact us.
This article is educational and does not replace legal advice on a specific matter.
Frequently asked questions
Does every informal concern require a full investigation?
No. Not every concern requires formal proceedings, but the employer should respond. At a minimum, gather the initial facts and document that the concern was received and assessed. If those facts indicate that further action is needed, begin the appropriate process. If not, document the findings and close the matter. No response at all creates a risk of an allegation that the employer failed to act.
What if the report concerns a management board member or the company’s owner?
The ordinary route from HR to the management board may not be impartial. Provide an alternative in advance, such as an external law firm or, where the company has one, a supervisory board member. Decisions about further measures should be made by the highest-level body in the organization that is independent of the person named in the report.
Can we promise the reporting employee anonymity?
Be careful. You can limit disclosure of their identity and data to those who need access, but complete anonymity may be difficult to maintain, especially if accounts must be compared or challenged during an investigation. Explain what confidentiality the process can provide rather than making a promise the employer may not be able to keep.
What if conduct is harmful but does not qualify as mobbing?
Under the new definition, isolated conduct does not meet the persistence requirement, even if it violates dignity. Use a separate response route, which may involve a corrective conversation, mediation, or changes in work organization. Failure to respond may raise separate claims under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code or Article 11¹ of the Labor Code.
Is updating the policy enough, or should managers be trained?
Managers are often the first people employees approach. A revised document will have limited value if managers dismiss concerns, prejudge outcomes, or promise secrecy they cannot ensure. Training should cover the initial conversation, factual documentation, and when to refer the matter to HR or an independent external recipient.
How quickly must we respond?
The amendment does not expressly set a specific response deadline. The general duty to counter mobbing nevertheless calls for a prompt response. Set workable internal targets—for example, acknowledging receipt within 48 hours, making an initial assessment within seven days, and giving the reporting employee feedback within 30 days. The appropriate periods depend on the organization’s size and the complexity of the matter; specify them in the internal rules.
