Reclassification of B2B contracts in Poland — what the new Labour Inspectorate Act changes and how to prepare your agreements

On April 2, 2026, President Karol Nawrocki signed the Act of March 11, 2026, amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, “PIP”) and certain other acts (parliamentary print no. 2250). At the same time, he referred the Act to the Constitutional Tribunal for ex-post review — meaning the Act enters into force and is binding regardless of the pending proceedings before the Tribunal. It will take effect three months after its publication in the Journal of Laws.

For businesses relying on contractor agreements — commonly referred to as “B2B contracts” in Poland — this is the moment to review both the content of existing agreements and, equally importantly, how the collaboration actually functions in practice.

This article discusses the content of the amended provisions, the scope of new powers granted to the National Labour Inspectorate, new protective instruments available to businesses, and practical steps to consider before the Act enters into force.

What changes in the PIP Act — overview of the amended provisions

The amendment primarily modifies Article 11 of the Act of April 13, 2007, on the National Labour Inspectorate. Until now, a labour inspector who determined that a civil-law contract bore characteristics of an employment relationship could only file a claim with a court to establish the existence of an employment relationship (Article 631 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The procedure was lengthy and did not serve as an effective enforcement tool.

The new provisions reshape this model in three fundamental areas.

New Article 11(2) — order to remedy violations

A new paragraph 2 has been added to Article 11 of the PIP Act, under which the National Labour Inspectorate — after allowing the parties to the legal relationship to present their position — is authorised to issue an order to remedy violations concerning:

1. the functioning of a civil-law contract (point 1) — that is, the removal of elements characteristic of an employment relationship from such contract, or
2. the failure to conclude an employment contract (point 2) — where the legal relationship between the parties is predominantly characterised by features of an employment relationship as defined in Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code.

An order under point 1 is essentially a request to modify the contract. As explained by Chief Labour Inspector Marcin Stanecki at the conference “Establishing the existence of an employment relationship and the decision of the district labour inspector” (March 2026), the inspector will in such cases request the removal of provisions characteristic of an employment relationship from the civil-law contract^[1]. The order is not mandatory in nature — the inspected entity may refuse to comply^[2].

Notably, the phrase “predominantly characterised by features of an employment relationship” in point 2 has been identified as evaluative. As pointed out by Iwona Kozera-Rytel, chief legislative counsel at the Legislative Bureau of the Senate Chancellery, this wording may give inspectors considerable interpretive discretion^[3].

New Article 11(7a) — administrative decision

The central change: a new paragraph 7a has been added to Article 11, empowering the District Labour Inspector to establish the existence of an employment relationship by way of an administrative decision — where:

• a civil-law contract has been concluded, or a person actually performs work for remuneration under conditions in which, pursuant to Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code, an employment contract should have been concluded, and
• the inspected entity has failed to comply with the order referred to in paragraph 2.

The decision specifies: the type of employment contract, the date of its conclusion and the date of commencement of work, the type of work, the place of performance, working time, and remuneration.

Crucially, the prior failure to comply with the order is a prerequisite for issuing the decision. In other words, the decision will never be the first step. The Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy has emphasised that this is “an appropriately designed, multi-stage process protecting all parties”^[4].

When issuing a decision, the inspector takes into account the will of the parties, provided it is not contrary to the law — in particular, labour law provisions or principles of social coexistence — and does not aim to circumvent the law.

Legal effects of the decision — from when does it apply

The decision produces legal effects from the date of its issuance (not retroactively) in terms of labour law, taxes, and social and health insurance contributions. There is no immediate enforceability — the decision becomes enforceable only after the expiry of the appeal period or after a final court ruling^[5].

An exception applies to persons covered by special protection against dismissal (e.g. pregnant women) — in their case, immediate enforceability may be imposed^[5].

For the period before the decision was issued (from the date the employment relationship arose to the date the decision was served), tax and social security effects arise only after the decision becomes final, or — if an appeal is filed — after the court judgment becomes final and binding.

Changes in the appeals procedure — Code of Civil Procedure

The amendment introduces separate provisions into the Code of Civil Procedure governing two types of proceedings:

Appeal proceedings against PIP decisions. An appeal is filed in writing through the District Labour Inspector to the labour court within one month of service of the decision. The District Labour Inspector may amend or revoke the decision if it considers the appeal justified (so-called auto-remedium). Settlement between the parties is permitted.

Standard proceedings to establish the existence of an employment relationship. The court is required to schedule a hearing no later than one month from the date the claim is filed — a significant acceleration compared to current practice.

Increased fines

The amendment to the Labour Code raises the upper limits of fines for offences against employee rights:

	Previous amount	After the amendment
Maximum fine	PLN 30,000	PLN 60,000
Maximum fine (repeat offence)	PLN 45,000	PLN 90,000

Remote inspections and PIP–ZUS–KAS data exchange

The Act expands inspection capabilities to include remote inspections and electronic document circulation, allowing the Inspectorate to conduct more inspections in less time.

Furthermore, the Act facilitates and broadens cooperation between the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP), the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and the National Revenue Administration (KAS). Data exchange between these institutions will enable a more comprehensive assessment of inspected entities — cross-referencing information on contracts, social security contributions and tax settlements.

Individual interpretation — a new protective instrument

One of the most notable innovations for businesses is the individual interpretation by the Chief Labour Inspector, modelled on tax interpretations under the Tax Ordinance Act. It is governed by a new Article 12a added to the PIP Act.

An authorised entity may file a request for an interpretation on whether a given legal relationship constitutes an employment relationship within the meaning of Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code. The request must contain a description of the factual circumstances or a future event and the applicant’s position. The fee is PLN 40 (approx. EUR 9), and the interpretation should be issued within 30 days of receiving a complete application.

The interpretation is binding on the National Labour Inspectorate. An applicant who acts in accordance with the interpretation obtained cannot be subject to administrative, financial or criminal sanctions. The interpretation may be amended or revoked only if the circumstances of the case change.

As indicated by Chief Labour Inspector Marcin Stanecki, the issuance of individual interpretations will be an entirely new power and obligation of the Inspectorate^[6]. For companies using the B2B model, this constitutes a relatively inexpensive and effective safeguard — particularly following an audit of contracts and the removal of contentious elements.

Grace period — 12 months for voluntary compliance

Article 16 of the Act provides a protective mechanism: an entity that, before the Act enters into force, engaged a person under a civil-law contract despite the relationship meeting the criteria of an employment relationship may avoid liability. The condition is the voluntary conclusion of an employment contract within 12 months of the Act’s entry into force.

As noted by Robert Lisicki, attorney-at-law and Director of the Labour Department at Konfederacja Lewiatan (the Polish Employers’ Confederation), the provision takes effect from the date the Act enters into force, which itself occurs three months after publication^[7]. In practice, this gives companies approximately 15 months from publication to make a decision and, where appropriate, conclude employment contracts.

An unresolved question — on which experts find no answer in the Act — concerns the situation where a labour inspection occurs shortly after the Act enters into force, while the 12-month grace period is still running. The Act does not explicitly regulate the relationship between PIP’s power to issue orders and the ongoing grace period.

Ex-post constitutional review — what it means

President Nawrocki explained his decision to refer the Act to the Constitutional Tribunal as follows: “Following significant amendments introduced during parliamentary proceedings, I have decided to sign this Act. However, I am simultaneously referring it for ex-post review by the Constitutional Tribunal.”^[8]

Ex-post review (Article 191(1)(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland) means the Act has been signed and, once published, will enter into force. The Constitutional Tribunal will examine its constitutionality at a later date — and only a potential finding of unconstitutionality could lead to the repeal or modification of its provisions.

The practical conclusion for businesses: until the Tribunal issues its ruling, the Act applies in full and PIP may exercise its new powers. Proceedings before the Tribunal may take many months.

What will the Labour Inspectorate focus on

Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code defines an employment relationship as one in which the employee undertakes to perform work of a specified type for the employer, under the employer’s direction and at a place and time designated by the employer, and the employer undertakes to employ the worker in return for remuneration.

The Chief Labour Inspector has emphasised that inspectors should not be guided by the text of the contract itself but should examine the work as actually performed^[1]. The case law of the Supreme Court (including judgments I PK 142/18, II PK 9/11, III PSKP 3/21) has established the principle that the label of a contract does not determine its legal character.

Elements that may indicate the existence of an employment relationship during an inspection:

Feature of an employment relationship (Art. 22 § 1 LC)	What the inspector will examine
Work performed under direction	Whether the principal issues day-to-day instructions on the manner and order of task performance
Designated working hours	Whether the contractor has set working hours, with a requirement to report attendance daily
Designated place of work	Whether there is an obligation to provide services from the principal’s premises
Personal performance of work	Whether the contract excludes the possibility of a substitute performing the services
Remuneration independent of output	Whether remuneration is a fixed monthly amount, unrelated to specific deliverables
No business risk	Whether the contractor bears no liability for defects in the service provided
Organisational integration	Whether the person uses a company email address, business cards, participates in periodic reviews
Disciplinary measures	Whether reprimands, warnings or other instruments under Article 108 of the Labour Code are applied — these are exclusively features of employment

The occurrence of a single element does not conclusively establish reclassification. The assessment is holistic — the inspector weighs civil-law and employment features together. As noted by Robert Lisicki, the Act has underscored the significance of the parties’ intent when examining the character of a contract, with the caveat that where employment features predominate, intent will not prevail^[9].

How to prepare your contracts and collaboration practices

The following actions are worth considering before the Act enters into force. They are presented in order of urgency — from the most pressing to the longer-term.

Before the Act enters into force (~July 2026)

Review contract content. Identify provisions that may raise concerns — in particular: use of the word “position” (terminology from Article 29 § 1(1) of the Labour Code), provisions granting 26 business days of leave (identical to Article 154 § 1(2) LC), an obligation of personal performance without a realistic possibility of substitution, fixed monthly remuneration unrelated to any deliverable, or a non-compete clause without compensation.

Verify actual practice. Even the most carefully drafted contract will not protect a company if the actual collaboration model corresponds to an employment relationship. It is worth examining whether, in practice, the B2B contractor works fixed hours, from the company’s office, using company equipment, and reports to a superior.

Remove the highest-risk elements. This is precisely what the inspector will request in an order under Article 11(2)(1). Implementing changes before an inspection means that any potential order becomes moot.

Within three months of the Act entering into force

Consider applying for an individual interpretation. After optimising contracts and practices, it is worth filing an application with the Chief Labour Inspector. Cost: PLN 40, timeline: 30 days — and if the interpretation is complied with, the company is protected against sanctions.

Develop internal guidelines for B2B collaboration. Document why a given collaboration model is a service relationship rather than employment — identifying distinguishing elements (autonomy, own equipment, multiple clients, project-based billing).

Train personnel who manage contractor relationships. Managers should know which behaviours to avoid (e.g. issuing instructions on how to perform tasks, mandating office hours, recording a contractor’s working time).

Before the grace period expires (~July 2027)

Decide whether to convert to employment. For collaborations that objectively meet all criteria of an employment relationship, voluntary conclusion of an employment contract within the 12-month grace period (Article 16) exempts the entity from liability.

Conduct a follow-up review. Changes to contract wording are meaningful only if they translate into changes in the actual manner of collaboration.

Legal uncertainties to bear in mind

The Act is not without controversy. The Legislative Bureau of the Senate Chancellery openly acknowledged that it was unable to prepare a full written opinion due to the speed of the legislative process^[3]. Several issues merit attention.

Imprecision of key terms. The phrase “functioning of a civil-law contract” in Article 11(2)(1) — as Iwona Kozera-Rytel pointed out — may give rise to interpretive doubts. It is unclear whether this refers to the content of the contract, the manner of its performance, or the method of settlement^[3]. Similar reservations apply to the phrase “predominantly characterised by features of an employment relationship,” which does not specify how this weighing is to be conducted.

Application of the Code of Administrative Procedure. Article 1(2) of the Act introduces a reference to Article 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in PIP proceedings — which legal commentators have identified as inconsistent with the existing system of cross-references in the PIP Act (Article 12) and potentially leading to procedural difficulties^[10].

Relationship between the grace period and PIP’s inspection powers. The Act does not explicitly determine whether an inspector may issue an order or initiate proceedings while the 12-month grace period under Article 16 is still running.