{"id":3128,"date":"2026-10-29T10:45:59","date_gmt":"2026-10-29T10:45:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/?p=3128"},"modified":"2026-10-29T13:25:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-29T13:25:05","slug":"poland-workplace-mobbing-reporting-process-kopiuj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/poland-workplace-mobbing-reporting-process-kopiuj\/","title":{"rendered":"Workplace Mobbing in Poland: Design a Reporting Process Employees Can Use"},"content":{"rendered":"

Workplace Mobbing in Poland: Design a Reporting Process Employees Can Use<\/h1>\n

The most dangerous phrase in a company\u2019s anti-mobbing policy may be \u201cmobbing report.\u201d 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\u2014and the employer may first learn about the problem through a lawsuit.<\/p>\n

Poland\u2019s Act of June 19, 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046<\/a>) changes the definition of mobbing<\/em>, expands employers\u2019 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<\/strong>. Employers with at least 10 employees have until May 5, 2027<\/strong> to bring their internal rules into compliance.<\/p>\n

The operational problem starts earlier. An employee writes to HR: \u201cI don\u2019t know if this is mobbing, but something has been happening for three months and it\u2019s wearing me down.\u201d A policy that only accepts a formal allegation of mobbing may have no clear way to handle that message.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Key Polish concepts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nMeaning in this article<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Mobbing<\/strong><\/td>\nUnder 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 94\u00b3 \u00a7\u00a7 2\u20133 of the Polish Labor Code<\/a>).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Persistence<\/strong><\/td>\nThe repeated, recurring, or ongoing character required for conduct to qualify as mobbing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Anti-mobbing procedure<\/strong><\/td>\nAn employer\u2019s internal rules or policy specifying the rules, procedures, and frequency of measures to counter mobbing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Low-threshold reporting channel<\/strong><\/td>\nA way to report facts without requiring the employee to identify a legal claim.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Impartiality test<\/strong><\/td>\nA check that the person receiving or handling a report is not connected to the person named in it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u201cMobbing\u201d is used here as a term of Polish employment law, not as a general label for every instance of inappropriate workplace conduct.<\/p>\n

What the 2026 Labor Code amendment changes<\/h2>\n

Definition and reporting implications<\/h3>\n

The amendment (Journal of Laws 2026, item 1046<\/a>) defines mobbing by reference to persistent harassment of an employee<\/strong>. Persistence means conduct that is repeated, recurring, or ongoing.<\/p>\n

The Act gives examples of conduct, including:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Humiliation and denigration<\/li>\n
  2. Intimidation<\/li>\n
  3. Undermining an employee\u2019s professional competence<\/li>\n
  4. Unjustified criticism and humiliation<\/li>\n
  5. Ridicule<\/li>\n
  6. Obstructing an employee\u2019s ability to function within a team<\/li>\n
  7. Isolating or excluding an employee from a team<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    An isolated incident\u2014even one that infringes a person\u2019s legally protected personal interests\u2014does not constitute mobbing<\/strong> under the new definition.<\/p>\n

    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 \u201cqualifies\u201d as mobbing can cause the employer to miss that pattern.<\/p>\n

    Employer obligations and dates<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Item<\/th>\nPosition described in the amendment<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Entry into force<\/strong><\/td>\nNovember 5, 2026, following publication on August 4, 2026<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Employers required to have an internal procedure<\/strong><\/td>\nThose employing at least 10 people, through workplace regulations, a collective bargaining agreement, or another internal instrument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Deadline to adapt internal rules<\/strong><\/td>\nMay 5, 2027<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Smaller employers<\/strong><\/td>\nMust inform employees of the applicable rules and procedures, without a requirement to adopt a formal internal instrument<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Scope of measures<\/strong><\/td>\nPrevention, detection, response, remedial action, and support for affected people<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Claims and financial exposure<\/h3>\n

    The following distinction matters when assessing the employer\u2019s exposure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Claim-related issue<\/th>\nThrough November 4, 2026<\/th>\nFrom November 5, 2026<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Monetary award for non-material harm (zado\u015b\u0107uczynienie<\/em>)<\/strong><\/td>\nRequires proof of a health disorder<\/td>\nDoes not require proof of a health disorder<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Minimum award for non-material harm<\/strong><\/td>\nNo statutory minimum<\/td>\nSix times the statutory minimum wage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Damages (odszkodowanie<\/em>)<\/strong><\/td>\nMinimum equals the statutory minimum wage<\/td>\nNo change<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Employer\u2019s right of recourse<\/strong><\/td>\nNo express regulation<\/td>\nRight to seek reimbursement from the person responsible for the violation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    Sources: Polish government information on the new mobbing provisions<\/a> and the Polish National Labor Inspectorate<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Removing the health-disorder requirement and introducing a substantially higher minimum award increases employers\u2019 financial risk. An early, documented response to a report may help show that the employer fulfilled its obligation to counter mobbing\u2014and may limit liability.<\/p>\n

    Why a formal \u201cmobbing report\u201d can discourage reporting<\/h2>\n

    It asks employees to make a legal judgment<\/h3>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    A policy that begins with a formal \u201cmobbing report\u201d presents three unattractive choices:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Call the conduct mobbing without knowing whether that is legally correct.<\/li>\n
    2. Say nothing for fear of overreacting or making an unfair accusation.<\/li>\n
    3. Wait for more incidents, losing the opportunity for early intervention.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Each outcome makes it harder for the employer to respond while the problem is still developing.<\/p>\n

      It invites premature conclusions<\/h3>\n

      Suppose a manager responds to an initial concern by saying, \u201cThat definitely isn\u2019t mobbing. Don\u2019t overreact.\u201d The employee may stop engaging, while the employer has created a record of dismissing the concern.<\/p>\n

      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 94\u00b3 \u00a7 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<\/a>).<\/p>\n

      It leaves isolated misconduct without a route to resolution<\/h3>\n

      The new mobbing definition requires persistence. An isolated incident may therefore fall outside it while still violating an employee\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

      Four questions for the first conversation<\/h2>\n

      Start with facts, not \u201cIs this mobbing?\u201d The person receiving the concern should ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Question<\/th>\nWhat it establishes<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      What happened?<\/strong><\/td>\nSpecific words, gestures, or actions, recorded without prematurely adopting an interpretation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      When did it happen, and how often?<\/strong><\/td>\nWhether the conduct appears isolated, repeated, recurring, or ongoing.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Who or what may corroborate it?<\/strong><\/td>\nPotential witnesses and records, such as emails or messages.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Is the usual reporting route impartial?<\/strong><\/td>\nWhether the person receiving the concern has a connection to the person named in it.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      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.<\/p>\n

      What managers should not say<\/h3>\n

      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:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. \u201cThis definitely isn\u2019t mobbing.\u201d<\/strong> It reaches a conclusion before the facts are gathered.<\/li>\n
      2. \u201cDon\u2019t overreact.\u201d<\/strong> It dismisses the concern and discourages further reporting.<\/li>\n
      3. \u201cThey didn\u2019t mean any harm.\u201d<\/strong> It assumes intent instead of examining conduct.<\/li>\n
      4. \u201cI promise it won\u2019t happen again.\u201d<\/strong> It makes a promise without a basis for doing so.<\/li>\n
      5. \u201cI won\u2019t tell anyone.\u201d<\/strong> It promises a level of secrecy the company may not be able to maintain.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        If you need help designing an intake process, contact us<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        Build an impartial alternative reporting route<\/h2>\n

        A standard route may fail when a report concerns the designated recipient\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

        The person handling a report should not be the person whose conduct is reported, that person\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

        Specify an alternative recipient before<\/strong> a conflict arises:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Alternative<\/th>\nPotential use<\/th>\nCondition to check<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
        Another HR employee<\/strong><\/td>\nA report concerning the employee\u2019s direct manager<\/td>\nHR must not report to the person named in the report.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        External law firm<\/strong><\/td>\nA report concerning HR or a management board member<\/td>\nProvides an independent, confidential route.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Supervisory board member<\/strong><\/td>\nA report concerning the CEO or a management board member<\/td>\nAvailable to companies with a supervisory board.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Compliance officer<\/strong><\/td>\nAn organization with compliance separate from HR<\/td>\nResponsibilities must be clearly divided.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        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\u2014\u201cIf the report concerns X, contact Y\u201d\u2014may be enough to make the route usable.<\/p>\n

        Respond even when the conduct is not mobbing<\/h2>\n

        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.<\/p>\n

        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\u2019s dignity under Article 11\u00b9 of the Polish Labor Code.<\/p>\n

        The procedure should expressly explain what happens below the mobbing threshold:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Identify possible measures:<\/strong> for example, a corrective conversation, mediation, a change in work organization, or training.<\/li>\n
        2. Assign responsibility:<\/strong> specify who decides which measures are appropriate.<\/li>\n
        3. Document the incident:<\/strong> it may become relevant to a pattern if conduct recurs.<\/li>\n
        4. Inform the reporting employee:<\/strong> communicate the outcome and measures taken within a reasonable period.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          A finding of \u201cnot mobbing\u201d should not function as an automatic instruction to do nothing.<\/p>\n

          Coordinate anti-mobbing and whistleblowing channels<\/h2>\n

          Neither procedure automatically takes priority<\/h3>\n

          Poland\u2019s Whistleblower Protection Act (Journal of Laws 2024, item 928)<\/a> does not list mobbing as a standalone category of legal violation. As a rule, a mobbing report is not \u201cinformation about a breach of law\u201d within the meaning of that Act. There is no provision giving either reporting procedure automatic priority over the other.<\/p>\n

          The routes may nevertheless overlap. A report might describe both mobbing and a violation within Article 3(1) of the Whistleblower Protection Act\u2014for example, a personal data protection violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
          What the report describes<\/th>\nAppropriate route<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
          Mobbing-related conduct only<\/td>\nAnti-mobbing procedure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          A breach within the Whistleblower Protection Act\u2019s listed categories<\/td>\nWhistleblowing procedure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          Mobbing-related conduct and a listed breach, such as a GDPR violation<\/td>\nAssess each element separately and coordinate both processes in parallel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
          A breach of internal rules<\/td>\nDepends on those rules; the channels may be integrated<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

          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<\/a> or remove the duty to counter mobbing under Article 94\u00b3 \u00a7 1 of the Labor Code.<\/p>\n

          Document reports without collecting more data than needed<\/h2>\n

          Apply GDPR to the case record<\/h3>\n

          Intake notes, interview records, witness statements, and investigation findings involve the processing of personal data<\/a> under the GDPR<\/a>. Depending on the processing, the basis may be:<\/p>\n