For years, civil-law contracts were a safe alternative to an employment contract. Even if a labour inspector noticed during an inspection that a working relationship looked, in practice, like ordinary employment, the most they could do was refer the case to court. The process could take years, giving the company time to find the best way to resolve the situation. This state of affairs came to an end on 8 July 2026, when the Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate entered into force. As of that date, it is the employer who must defend itself against an administrative decision that the inspector can issue on their own, converting a contract of mandate or a B2B contract into an employment contract.
What exactly changed in the PIP regulations, and which contracts do the new provisions cover?
Before the amendment, an inspector who identified features of an employment relationship in a civil-law contract could only issue a formal notice, bring an action before the labour court, or impose a fine. Now, the regional labour inspector can independently issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship in place of a contract of mandate, a contract for specific work, a B2B contract, or a management contract. The substantive legal basis has not changed — whether an employment relationship exists is still assessed under Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code. What has changed is the legal tool used to enforce that provision.
The new provisions cover contracts of mandate, contracts for specific work, and B2B contracts. The contractual relationships under scrutiny are those in which the work is actually performed under conditions typical of employment, regardless of the name given to the contract. The reform does not eliminate self-employment as such: if a contractor genuinely operates independently, bears business risk, and decides for themselves where and when to perform their tasks, the B2B or mandate model of cooperation remains safe.
The act has been referred for subsequent review by the Constitutional Tribunal, which does not, however, suspend its application.
What does the procedure for converting a contract into an employment contract look like?
The inspector examines how the contract is actually performed, not its wording. If the inspector finds that features typical of an employment relationship predominate, they first issue an order to conclude an employment contract. Voluntary compliance with the order closes the case without a decision.
Only a failure to comply with the order leads to an administrative decision of the regional labour inspector converting the civil-law contract into an employment relationship. The decision takes effect for the future, from the date it is issued, not retroactively. Contrary to popular belief, the decision is not automatically immediately enforceable — that rigour is reserved for specially protected persons, such as pregnant employees.
An appeal against the decision may be brought before the labour court within one month; the court examines the case afresh. The burden of proving that the contract under review is not an employment relationship, however, rests with the employer.
Companies that, within 12 months of the act’s entry into force, voluntarily convert risky contracts avoid liability for the petty offence. It is also possible, for a fee of PLN 40, to apply to the Chief Labour Inspector for an individual interpretation — the response protects the applicant within the scope described in the interpretation.
What exactly does the inspector check during an inspection, and which clauses raise doubts?
The assessment always concerns how the contract is actually performed, not its name. The inspector examines: subordination (ongoing instructions and supervision, as opposed to settlement based on results), place and time of work (imposed or freely determined by the contractor), the obligation to perform the work personally (with no possibility of substitution), the continuity and repetitive nature of the cooperation, the method of remuneration (a fixed amount “for time” as opposed to payment “for results”), business risk, the use of company tools, integration into the organisation (schedules, attendance lists, occupational health and safety training), and exclusivity towards a single contracting party. Evidence is gathered from contracts, correspondence, invoices, and statements from the parties and witnesses. No single element is decisive on its own — what matters is the overall picture of the cooperation.
The most common warning signs in the wording of contracts are: fixed working hours instead of task deadlines, no possibility of delegating the task to a third party, a place of work limited to the client’s premises, a clause on reporting to a “supervisor” or hierarchical subordination, a fixed monthly salary independent of the scope of work, a ban on providing services to other entities, an obligation to follow the client’s work regulations and time records, the free provision of equipment and licences (particularly in B2B arrangements), “leave” regulated as in an employment contract, disciplinary penalties and performance reviews modelled on employee practice, a total absence of the contractor’s liability for the outcome, and a long series of successive contracts with no change in the scope of duties. A single such clause rarely decides the case on its own — the real issue is the accumulation of several features at once, which shows that the name of the contract is merely a label for what is, in fact, an employment relationship.
What penalties does the employer face, and how can they be avoided?
A financial penalty (a fine for a petty offence) for incorrectly concluded contracts ranges from PLN 2,000 to PLN 60,000. In addition, the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and the tax office may pursue back social security contributions and taxes for up to 5 years, and from the date of the decision the contractor gains the full range of employee entitlements — leave, protection against dismissal, and overtime pay. On top of this comes the reputational cost that arises simply from the fact of an inspection ending in a conversion decision.
It is already worth carrying out an audit of contracts of mandate, contracts for specific work, and B2B contracts to assess how they are actually performed; using the one-year adjustment period to voluntarily bring risky contracts into order; considering an individual interpretation from the Chief Labour Inspector in borderline situations; and gathering documentation confirming the genuine independence of contractors (flexible hours, their own tools, multiple clients, liability for results).
An employment contract is one of the basic forms of employment in Poland. What distinguishes it from other “employment contracts” (e.g., commission contracts or B2B contracts) is that it is subject to the regulations contained in the Labor Code regarding the rights and obligations of the employee and the employer. So what are the characteristics of a contractual employment relationship?
Employers take varied measures in order to mitigate costs of employment and eliminate a part of their responsibilities. Some of them, instead of classic employment contract, conclude so-called B2B agreements with job applicants. Others decide to change the method of “employment” after it commences – they decide to change from employment contract to B2B contract. However, concluding B2B contracts can result in some particular kind of risk.
