Publication date: October 12, 2026
Karolina Bednarska
New provisions governing the operation of the Polish National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, hereinafter: “PIP”) have been in force since 8 July 2026. The Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy (hereinafter: “MRPiPS”) is changing the law in order to strengthen the protection of employee rights in Poland. The amendment does not alter the Labour Code itself; rather, it introduces tools for the effective and efficient enforcement of the law already in force. Minister Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk described the act as a further instrument protecting honest businesses against unfair competitors who for years have built their advantage at the expense of workers – preventing the artificial lowering of labour costs (social security contributions, taxes, paid leave). The changes also implement milestones of Poland’s National Recovery Plan (KPO) aimed at curbing the abuse of civil-law contracts and improving the protection of persons in employment. The Ministry’s measures are directed above all at limiting bogus self-employment and so-called “junk contracts”.
Following the entire legislative process – on the website of the Government Legislation Centre – one can see that the Ministry’s bill received mixed reviews; opinions were divided. The Association of Labour Inspectors of the Republic of Poland (hereinafter: “SIPRP”)[1] assessed the bill amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate rather sceptically, with criticism clearly predominating. Although the Association had for years called for a deep reform of the PIP, in its view the act in its present shape still requires improvement. The SIPRP considers that the new duties imposed on the Inspectorate are not matched by adequate tools to strengthen its position. It also emphasised repeatedly in its opinion that certain provisions are causing serious concern within the profession (for example, the modification of the rules on the conclusion of inspection proceedings – Article 11(7a) of the PIP Act), and that the bill lacked the solutions for which the profession had been waiting for years and for which it had appealed in vain (in the form of petitions and systemic postulates aimed at genuinely strengthening the position of the PIP). A similar tone marked the opinion prepared by the Trade Unions Forum (hereinafter: “FZZ”),[2] which stressed the lack of dialogue between the government side and civil society organisations. The solutions adopted are, in its view, deprived of the voice of the people who apply the provisions drawn up by the Ministry. Nevertheless, the FZZ notes certain solutions positively (for example, the shift from a model of immediate administrative authority to a two-stage procedure with an order to remedy infringements, and the transfer of decision-making competence to the higher, district level), while drawing attention to practical and logistical issues, such as a realistic estimate of costs, the need for staffing support (new posts at the PIP) and improvements in digitalisation and civil procedure, so that the courts do not become the “bottleneck” of the reform. The Polish Economic Society – Employers (hereinafter: “PTG”)[3] also spoke out on the reform of the National Labour Inspectorate. In its assessment, the government’s reforming measures create a risk of infringing economic freedom and freedom of contract. Part of the business community fears that officials will gain excessive discretionary power over what is, and what is not, a contract of mandate. Many entrepreneurs are concerned that the new provisions will strike at B2B arrangements which operate in accordance with the law, are fully lawful, and are chosen deliberately by specialists.
The opinions of these various organisations show clearly that the amendment of the provisions on the National Labour Inspectorate is not a reform to which the market and businesses can be indifferent. It represents a long-awaited chance to curb abuses and to improve the situation of persons engaged on fictitious civil-law contracts. Time will tell whether the new provisions prove an effective tool in the fight against abuses or – as business fears – a source of costly disputes and legal uncertainty.
The most important reform of the PIP’s powers is the conferral on district labour inspectors (okręgowi inspektorzy pracy) of the power to issue decisions converting improperly concluded contracts into employment contracts. The inspectors’ decision will be preceded by a multi-stage process. First, where infringements are detected, the PIP issues an order to remedy the irregularities. The inspector sets an appropriate time limit for concluding an employment contract, or for arranging the actual terms of cooperation in such a way that they comply with the law. Importantly, following the change in the law the burden of proof has been reversed: it will not be the inspector who has to demonstrate that the arrangement is in fact an employment relationship; rather, the employer will have to defend itself against a finding that an employment relationship exists and prove that the relationship in question is genuinely an independent B2B arrangement.
If the irregularities are not remedied by the business, the PIP inspector applies to the District Labour Inspector for a decision converting the improperly concluded contract into an employment contract. Both the employer and the worker will be able to appeal against the decision to the labour court, which will stay its enforcement until judgment (unless the decision has been declared immediately enforceable). For the duration of the court proceedings, the amendment provides for the possibility of securing the claim: the contract between the parties may be varied, terminated by notice or dissolved only in accordance with the rules of labour law. Until the dispute is finally resolved, a person covered by such an interim measure cannot be deprived of protection merely because he or she formally concluded a civil-law contract. In the event of notice of termination or dissolution of the contract, that person is entitled to the judicial remedies provided for in labour law. These measures are intended to protect workers’ rights, since an employment contract guarantees, among other things: paid annual leave; paid maternity, paternity and parental leave; paid sick leave; and protection against unjustified dismissal and against termination of the contract from one day to the next. In practice this may materially change the total cost of engagement – overtime pay, and the calculation of social security (ZUS) contributions and personal income tax advances.
The PIP may inspect any company, enterprise or firm, regardless of its size or industry. Its inspections will not focus solely on an analysis of the shape of the contract – its name and its wording. The inspectors’ activities are to concentrate on what the cooperation between the “employer” and the “worker” looks like in practice. The key elements will be subordination, the place and time of performance of the work, the personal provision of services, the continuity of the cooperation, the manner of supervision, and who actually bears the economic risk and organises the work. Scrutiny in this area will be facilitated by the fact that, following the changes in the law, the PIP is able to carry out inspections remotely and without prior notice, drawing on information from the ZUS, CEIDG, KAS and KRUS systems. In practice, this synergy of supervisory authorities will mean that data on employment and business relationships will be cross-checked, and irregularities detected automatically. It is therefore worth putting documents and procedures in order before any inspection begins. Even if an employer amends the provisions of a contract in order to shield itself from reclassification as an employment contract, there is no guarantee that the PIP will not nevertheless change the contract by decision after analysing the particular case. If the inspectors find that the day-to-day working model resembles regular employment and that the relevant contractual clauses do not alter the facts on the ground, the National Labour Inspectorate will have grounds to convert such a contract.
The reform introduced by the MRPiPS is not intended to abolish either contracts of mandate or B2B contracts. Concluding such contracts remains lawful and they may still be used, but they must correspond to the real model of cooperation. The PIP’s new powers are meant to counteract pathologies in the labour market in which a civil-law contract is used as a form of engagement in place of an employment contract, even though the manner in which the work is performed points unmistakably to an employment relationship.
The act also introduces solutions such as an individual interpretation (advance ruling) procedure. An employer will be able to apply – the interpretations are issued by the Chief Labour Inspector – for confirmation that the way in which it engages its staff complies with the law. If irregularities come to light in the course of the proceedings, the authority will indicate how to bring the situation into conformity with the law. The interpretation is issued by way of a decision, against which an appeal lies to the court on the terms laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is binding in principle, but it does not preclude an inspection if the facts established in its course differ from those described in the application. Compliance with the interpretation provides protection against administrative and financial sanctions and penalties within the scope covered by the interpretation. In addition, since the entry into force of the amendment the PIP has been able to conduct remote inspections, which is intended to streamline and speed up inspections; and the maximum fine that the PIP may impose in summary penal-ticket proceedings has been at least doubled – from PLN 2,000 to PLN 5,000, and up to PLN 10,000 in cases of repeat offending. The grant of these broad competences was accompanied by the imposition on the institution of a significant duty: the PIP must draw up annual and multi-annual action plans for targeted inspections on the basis of risk analysis.
The PIP reforms have a significant impact on business operations, including the activity of foreign entities employing or posting workers in Poland. The new inspection environment compels a far-reaching modification of organisational structures, compliance procedures, and the approach to legal risk management.
International capital groups and their subsidiaries should impose on the entities acting on their behalf in Poland corporate procedures governing the establishment of cooperation and the drafting of contracts with Polish personnel. A foreign company can no longer rely solely on the autonomy of local management without oversight. What is required is the establishment of a permanent audit trail, the appointment of dedicated HR managers, and the alignment of corporate policy with the realities of Polish legislation. Foreign enterprises must move away from flexible but risky models of cooperation based exclusively on civil-law (B2B) contracts for tasks of a continuous nature performed under supervision. This requires converting such relationships into standard employment wherever the hallmarks of an employment relationship are present.
Foreign employers who post their workers to Poland may be inspected by labour inspectors both as to the lawfulness of the posting (documentation, notifications in the EU systems) and as to whether a genuine act of posting actually took place (verification that the posting is not fictitious). Owing to the large number of reports concerning sham agencies, the PIP is also focusing its activity on the verification of such institutions; it is therefore important to maintain the consistency, continuity and credibility of documentation. A lack of consistency in documentation carries the risk of the workers being deemed to be employed directly in Poland, with all the financial consequences that entails.
Foreign entities engaging persons who perform remote work from Polish territory must take account of the question of the permanent place of performance of their worker’s duties, with a view to the correct settlement of taxes and social insurance. The cooperation agreement should set out the terms of engagement in detail, because the PIP – in addition to analysing employment contracts and their practical application – verifies whether remote work is not concealing a permanent branch of the foreign enterprise in Poland, a so-called permanent establishment for tax purposes, which is decisive for determining where the tax obligation lies.
Temporary employment agencies may also find themselves under the particular supervision of the National Labour Inspectorate. Concluding civil-law contracts for work of a continuous nature performed under the supervision of the user undertaking is contrary to the law and subject to rectification. Offering temporary work on the basis of civil-law contracts instead of temporary employment contracts exposes firms to immediate decisions changing the nature of the engagement and to the withdrawal of the agency’s operating licence.
Firms which use the services of contractors (independent providers rendering services under a B2B agreement or contract) or of outsourcing (companies to which selected tasks are contracted out) must pay close attention to clauses indicative of employee subordination. If a contractor performs repetitive tasks at a designated place and time under the direction of the principal, the contract may be challenged as a circumvention of labour law.
It becomes crucial to introduce detailed, consistent and transparent documentation: personnel files, working time records, documents confirming the actual performance of duties, and internal decision-making paths. Furthermore, international capital groups must implement advanced internal compliance procedures which align corporate policy with Polish labour law – something that requires constant monitoring of the conformity of HR practices with the legislation.
Changes in the law need not automatically mean risk, provided that the company prepares for them early and comprehensively. The key to certainty and peace of mind is, above all, preventive action and diligent documentation. To protect an enterprise against HR-related problems, the first step is to carry out a regular audit of all civil-law contracts and existing practices; this allows potential irregularities to be detected relatively quickly. The analysis covers an assessment of clauses concerning subordination, the place and time of performance of tasks, reporting rules, and the scope of the provider’s independence, making it possible to eliminate potential risk factors before an inspector takes up the matter. Once the audit has been completed, new contract templates should be implemented: a safe contract should clearly specify the scope of liability, the option of using subcontractors, the absence of organisational subordination, and the bearing of economic risk by the provider. Equally important is the gathering of evidence of the entire course of the cooperation between the parties (preferably in digital form). In the event of an inspection, it is precisely the organisational documentation that will be decisive.
If, however, the scope of duties and the manner of performing tasks point unequivocally to an employment relationship, the company must take the strategic decision to convert the defective contracts into employment contracts. Taking that decision sufficiently early may protect the firm from having to pay arrears of contributions with interest and from the imposition of sanctions. An alternative tool for contracts giving rise to doubt is to use the individual interpretation mechanism referred to in Article 14b of the amended PIP Act.
Regardless of the type of contract chosen, the inspectors’ attention may be drawn by a complaint lodged by a former associate after the relationship with the firm has ended. The longer the cooperation lasted, and the more it resembled regular employment, the higher the risk that the documentation presented will not withstand scrutiny by the authority. Serious doubts on the part of the PIP, ZUS and the tax office are also raised by the mass transfer of salaried employees onto B2B contracts or contracts of mandate, which tends to be interpreted as a circumvention of the law aimed at avoiding public-law burdens. It is also worth checking whether there is any divergence in the company’s records between the wording of the contract and internal documents: if the contract guarantees full freedom, but company regulations oblige associates to take part in training, annual appraisals or the use of the social benefits fund, the inspector will analyse these materials together – and internal reality will always prevail over what is written on paper.
Whatever the reason for the commencement of inspection activities by the National Labour Inspectorate, what is key for the business, and for the proper course of the visit, is to adopt an open and matter-of-fact attitude and to provide the inspector with appropriate conditions for the efficient verification of documents and the examination of witnesses. It should be remembered, however, that constructive cooperation does not mean the uncritical acceptance of every demand made. The business has every right to expect that all activities will be conducted strictly within the limits of the inspector’s authorisation, in accordance with the applicable procedure, and with respect for all the legal guarantees to which the inspected entity is entitled.
The new provisions focus on the elimination of the so-called grey zone and of abuses at the interface between civil law and labour law. The inspectors’ examination of the legal relationship linking the “employer” and the “worker” for lawfulness is carried out on the basis of the criteria in Article 22 of the Labour Code: what is decisive is solely the sum of the characteristics of the actual performance of the tasks, not the name of the contract or its formal provisions. An employment relationship rests on subordination (the giving of instructions as to the manner, place and time of performance of the work), the personal performance of work (no possibility of appointing a substitute without the employer’s consent), continuity and remuneration (pay disbursed at fixed intervals irrespective of the result or effect of the work), and the employer’s responsibility (provision of the tools of work, infrastructure, and so on). Faced with such rigorous criteria for the assessment of contracts, businesses are under urgent pressure to review their existing models of cooperation. Ignoring these regulations may lead to serious financial and legal consequences, which is why the implementation of proactive adjustment measures becomes crucial.
B2B contracts are currently the most frequently challenged form of cooperation. The PIP pays particular attention to elements such as:
The contract for a specific work (umowa o dzieło), in turn – even though it is a distinctive form of cooperation, since what counts is a specific and visible result – remains within the National Labour Inspectorate’s field of interest. Inspectors pay attention to elements such as:
Following the amendment of the PIP Act, the contract most exposed to challenge is the contract of mandate (umowa zlecenia), since of all civil-law contracts its construction is the closest to an employment relationship. The difference lies in the degree of subordination and independence – and that is precisely what the inspector examines. The most frequently challenged elements are:
The key to avoiding adverse legal and financial consequences lies not in superficial touch-ups to the wording of contracts, but in a genuine reordering of day-to-day practices and in guaranteeing the actual independence of providers wherever civil-law contracts are used.
The reform of the National Labour Inspectorate in Poland is closely linked to the harmonisation of Polish law with EU regulations. The Directive on improving working conditions in platform work (2024/2831) introduces a legal presumption of an employment relationship for persons working through online platforms. If the application controls and directs the work, the person is deemed to be an employee rather than self-employed – and the burden of proof rests on the platform. Nowadays this form of work is increasingly chosen by young people, which compels both the EU and the Polish legislator to take protective measures in this field. Once the directive is transposed into Polish law (the transposition deadline is 2 December 2026), the PIP will have a tool for enforcing this presumption in practice. The directive additionally prohibits the collection of certain personal data (for example, on emotional state) by algorithms and requires human oversight of decisions to block or suspend accounts. The introduction of these rules in the platform work directive forms part of the broader European digital package and is closely connected with the provisions of the Digital Services Act (DSA). While the directive protects labour rights and prevents algorithmic arbitrariness towards service providers, the DSA imposes on digital platforms general requirements of transparency, accountability and oversight of algorithms, which complement the protection of users and digital workers. As a result, the two acts together form a coherent system: the DSA looks after a safe and transparent digital environment at the level of the platform as a whole, while the directive translates those principles directly into work relationships and fair conditions of engagement.
Also important in the context of the PIP’s activity is Directive 2019/1152 on transparent and predictable working conditions. It introduced an information obligation (Article 29 of the Labour Code) under which, within 7 days of the employee being admitted to work, the employer must provide the employee with detailed information on the terms of employment. In this context labour inspectors may verify whether that information is complete and exhaustive – for example, whether it includes information on overtime and the compensation for it, the rules for moving from shift to shift (in the case of shift work), information on the right to training and on the company’s training policy, or the rules for determining the length of the probationary period and daily and weekly rest, and so on. Moreover, under this directive the inspectors have obtained tools to check whether the termination of an employment contract was not the consequence of the employee asserting rights due under the Labour Code or of lodging a complaint with the PIP; they may also examine clauses in employment contracts and workplace regulations for prohibited bans on working for other entities, review the correctness of the conclusion of probationary contracts, and check whether the employer reimburses the costs of, or correctly accounts for the working time spent on, compulsory training.
In the context of the posting of workers, the EU legislator has adopted two significant directives: Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2018/957/EU amending it. One effect of the work on these directives, and of the accompanying EU enforcement framework, is an easier exchange of data between the PIP and the authorities of other Member States; moreover, it is on the basis of this framework that ZUS facilitates the verification of the pay and working conditions of cross-border workers. A directive of key importance, however, is the one on the protection of whistleblowers, which has been a direct impulse for the initiation of targeted inspections by the PIP. Directive (EU) 2019/1937 protects whistleblowers – persons who report breaches of the law – ensuring their safety from retaliation and guaranteeing the confidentiality of their identity. It guarantees protection against dismissal, demotion or other retaliatory measures on the part of the employer, as well as the confidentiality of the identity of the reporting person and of persons connected with them.
In the context of the EU directives mentioned above, an important European Union agency is the European Labour Authority (hereinafter: “ELA”), which forms a bridge connecting the National Labour Inspectorate with the inspectorates of other Member States. The Authority supports the PIP above all by organising and coordinating joint and concerted cross-border inspections, and by streamlining the exchange of information in cases of abuse concerning the posting of workers or bogus self-employment. The ELA’s activity also means that the Polish inspectorate gains real operational backing for the enforcement of the EU standards mentioned above in the international dimension.
The EU regulations presented here form a coherent, modern system of labour protection, with the result that the Polish labour inspectorate obtains better tools and its role correspondingly gains in importance. The PIP is ceasing to be merely an authority reacting to traditional shortcomings in production plants, and is becoming a modern guardian of the law, equipped with the tools to combat digital exploitation, opaque algorithms and cross-border abuses. The reform of the National Labour Inspectorate is thus a natural and necessary response to the challenges of today’s dynamically changing labour market.
The reform of the powers of the National Labour Inspectorate is one of the most important turning points in contemporary Polish employment policy, carrying with it both great hopes and considerable controversy. On the one hand, the new legal instruments – such as the possibility of converting civil-law contracts into employment by administrative decision – are meant genuinely to curb the abuse of “junk contracts” and to protect workers better. On the other hand, employers fear excessive bureaucracy, arbitrariness on the part of officials, and a restriction of the flexibility which has hitherto benefited more than one industry. The key to the success of the whole undertaking will therefore be the efficient staffing and preparation of the Inspectorate itself, together with a balanced social dialogue capable of reconciling the interests of business with respect for employee rights.
Implementing the changes described here requires not only legislative courage but also continuous monitoring of the economic effects the reform will have on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is worth remembering that the growth in the competences of supervisory authorities must go hand in hand with growth in their professionalism, in order to avoid a wave of unnecessary court disputes and the paralysis of business activity. Ultimately, the prospects facing the Polish labour market depend on whether the amended provisions become an effective tool for building fair relationships, or merely another bureaucratic challenge. The long-term effects of these measures will shape employment standards and the sense of social security of millions of citizens for years to come.
Government Legislation Centre, file of the draft act: https://legislacja.gov.pl/projekt/12401602/katalog/13153003
Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate and certain other acts (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 473): https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20260000473/O/D20260473.pdf
Opinion of the Association of Labour Inspectors of the Republic of Poland on the draft act amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate and certain other acts – draft of 1 September 2025 (No UD283 in the list of legislative and programme works of the Council of Ministers): https://www.siprp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/opinia-SIPRP_1709.pdf (accessed 4 August 2026)
Trade Unions Forum (FZZ), Comparative analysis of the draft reforms of the National Labour Inspectorate: https://fzz.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Analiza-porownawcza-projektow-reformy-Panstwowej-Inspekcji-Pracy-.pdf (accessed 4 August 2026)
Act of 26 June 1974 – Labour Code (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 277, as amended).
Directive (EU) 2024/2831 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on improving working conditions in platform work (OJ EU L of 2024, item 2831).
Directive (EU) 2019/1152 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on transparent and predictable working conditions in the European Union (OJ EU L 186 of 2019, p. 105).
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ EU L 18 of 1997, p. 1, as amended).
Directive (EU) 2018/957 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 June 2018 amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ EU L 173 of 9 July 2018, p. 16).
Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (OJ EU L 305 of 26 November 2019, p. 17).
Decision of the Supreme Court of 25 November 2025, I USK 433/24, LEX No 3945328.
European Labour Authority: https://www.ela.europa.eu/en
K. Lisiecka, M. Maksis, K. Polewka-Włoch, A. Szulc, Nowe uprawnienia PIP po zmianach 2026. Umowy cywilnoprawne w praktyce [The New Powers of the PIP after the 2026 Changes: Civil-Law Contracts in Practice], Warsaw 2026.
https://rpms.pl/umowy-b2b-zlecenie-2026-nowe-przepisy-ryzyko-uop
[1]A nationwide organisation associating primarily employees of, and labour inspectors connected with, the National Labour Inspectorate.
[2]One of the largest and most important trade union confederations in Poland, representing the interests of workers from various industries and sectors of the economy in dialogue with governments and employers.
[3]A nationwide, cross-sectoral employers’ association bringing together Polish entrepreneurs (both small and medium-sized firms and large enterprises).