For years, a B2B contract or a mandate contract (umowa zlecenia) with a person who in practice worked like a full-time employee was a risk deferred in time for a business. A labour inspector could challenge the contract, but in order to establish the existence of an employment relationship he had to bring an action in court. Since 8 July 2026 this has changed: the District Labour Inspector (okręgowy inspektor pracy) can himself, by way of an administrative decision, find that the parties are bound by an employment relationship. The decision has consequences in labour law, tax and social security contributions, and any dispute over it is heard by the labour court – on an appeal by the business or by the contractor.
We help businesses at three stages: before an inspection (reviewing contracts and the actual model of cooperation), during an inspection (position statements to the inspector, responding to an order) and after a decision (an appeal to the labour court, putting the remaining contracts in order). We also advise people working on B2B terms. The scope of work and the fee arrangement are agreed before the engagement begins; we handle many matters remotely.
What changed on 8 July 2026
The legal basis is the Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) and certain other acts (Dz.U. 2026 poz. 473), published on 7 April 2026. The most important changes are:
- a decision finding that an employment relationship exists – the District Labour Inspector may issue it where a civil-law contract has been concluded, or where a person in fact performs work for remuneration under conditions in which, according to Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code, an employment contract should have been concluded (new Article 11(1)(7a) of the PIP Act),
- an order as a precondition for the decision – the decision may be issued only if the entity has failed to comply with a prior order of the inspector (Article 11(2)),
- a broader scope of inspection – inspections now also cover businesses that are not employers but for whose benefit work is performed, or was performed within one year before the start of the inspection, including by sole traders (Article 13(1)),
- individual interpretations by the Chief Labour Inspector (Główny Inspektor Pracy, GIP) on the classification of a specific contract (Article 14b),
- higher fines for offences against employee rights, including for concluding a civil-law contract instead of an employment contract (Article 281 of the Labour Code),
- data exchange between the PIP, the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and the National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa, KAS) for risk analysis purposes.
Two transitional issues are of great practical importance. The new rules apply to civil-law contracts concluded before 8 July 2026 if they were still in force on that day (Article 14 of the amending act). However, inspections commenced and not completed before that date are conducted under the previous rules (Article 13) – which is why we always check the date on which the inspection began.
When signing the act, the President announced that he would refer it to the Constitutional Tribunal under the follow-up review procedure; according to press reports, the application reached the Tribunal in July 2026. Such an application does not suspend the application of the act – until any judgment is delivered, the provisions are in force and the inspectorate uses them.
When a B2B or mandate contract is in reality an employment contract
The criterion has not changed – what has changed is the authority applying it. Under Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code, by entering into an employment relationship the employee undertakes to perform work of a specified type for the employer and under its direction, at a place and time designated by the employer, and the employer undertakes to employ the employee for remuneration. Employment under such conditions is an employment relationship regardless of the name of the contract (Article 22 § 11 k.p.), and replacing an employment contract with a civil-law contract while those conditions are retained is not permitted (Article 22 § 12 k.p.). Case law and legal commentary also take the view that work within an employment relationship is performed personally.
So what counts is not the document but everyday practice. Typical warning signs:
- an employee "moved to B2B" but stayed in the same team, with the same manager,
- the contractor has fixed working hours, appears on the rota and agrees absences as if they were holiday leave,
- the remuneration is a fixed monthly amount, independent of results or of the number of services performed,
- the contractor cannot delegate the task to anyone else and has no other clients,
- tools, equipment and business risk lie entirely with the principal.
No single element is decisive – what counts is the overall picture. The proceedings also take into account the will of the parties, provided that it is not contrary to the law, in particular labour law provisions, or to the principles of community life (zasady współżycia społecznego), and is not aimed at circumventing the law (Article 33a(4) of the PIP Act).
Reviewing contracts before an inspection and individual interpretations
The best time for an analysis is before an inspection. Our review covers:
- a list of contracts – all ongoing civil-law contracts with natural persons (B2B, mandate contracts, contracts for the provision of services, contracts for specific work), with the date of conclusion and a description of the tasks actually performed,
- the content of the contracts – the subject matter described as a service or a result rather than a "position", the right to use substitutes or subcontractors, the method of acceptance and settlement, the absence of labour law concepts (holiday leave, manager, working hours),
- practice – rotas, time-recording systems, instant messengers, e-mail correspondence, the way absences are approved; the inspector may demand all documents relating to the performance of work, including by persons working on a basis other than an employment relationship (Article 23(1)(5) of the PIP Act),
- conclusions – dividing associates into groups: the B2B model has a genuine basis, the model requires changes to the contract and to practice, an employment contract is the right solution.
A new tool is the individual interpretation by the Chief Labour Inspector (Article 14b of the PIP Act). At the request of an entity subject to inspection, the GIP assesses whether the legal relationship described is an employment relationship within the meaning of Article 22 § 1 k.p. The application contains a description of the facts or of a future event, the applicant's own position and evidence, and the fee is PLN 40 for each separate set of facts. The interpretation is issued by way of a decision no later than 30 days after receipt of a complete application. It is binding on the PIP authorities, and an applicant who has complied with it cannot be subject to sanctions in that respect. The protection, however, extends only as far as the description in the application – if an inspection shows that reality looks different, the inspector will assess it independently (Article 14b(5)). No interpretation is issued in matters already the subject of proceedings before the PIP or ZUS. We help prepare a reliable description of the facts – that is what determines the value of the interpretation.
How a PIP inspection proceeds
Labour inspectors are authorised to inspect compliance with labour law without prior notice (Article 24(1) of the PIP Act). An inspection at a business is carried out after the inspector shows his service card and authorisation; if circumstances justify starting the inspection immediately, it is carried out after showing the service card, with the authorisation delivered within 7 days at the latest (Article 24(3) and (5)).
The amendment allows an inspection or part of it to be conducted remotely (Article 26(5)), allows the inspector to demand an online transmission for the purpose of inspecting documents and conducting interviews (Article 23(1)(2a)), and to summon witnesses from other regions through the competent District Labour Inspector (Article 23a).
The findings of the inspection are documented in a report (protokół). Before signing it, the business has the right to raise reasoned objections – in writing, within 7 days of the report being presented (Article 31(4)–(5)). During an inspection we recommend that the business designate one person for contact with the inspector and keep a list of the documents handed over.
The inspector's order – the last moment to present a position
Before a decision is made, the inspector – after giving the parties an opportunity to present their positions – may issue an order to remedy infringements relating to the functioning of a civil-law contract or the failure to conclude an employment contract, where the relationship between the parties is dominated by the features of an employment relationship under Article 22 § 1 k.p. (Article 11(2) of the PIP Act). The order is issued in writing, and the deadline for compliance is set so that compliance can be assessed while the inspection is still in progress (Article 34(1c)).
This is a key stage: the opportunity to present a position is a chance to submit documents before the findings "set" in the case file. Once it has received an order, a business in practice has three options:
- comply with the order, i.e. conclude an employment contract or change the model of cooperation so that it genuinely corresponds to a civil-law contract – in reality, not just on paper,
- not comply with the order, giving substantive reasons, and expect proceedings concerning a decision,
- comply with the order for some contracts and defend the existing model for others.
The choice depends on the strength of the evidence and the financial consequences.
The District Labour Inspector's decision
Proceedings concerning a decision are initiated by the District Labour Inspector on the basis of the inspection findings, with notice to the parties. The parties are everyone whom the decision may concern – including the contractor (Article 33a(1)–(2)). Instead of issuing a decision, the District Labour Inspector may bring an action to establish the existence or content of an employment relationship, in particular where the employment relationship needs to be established for a period earlier than the one the decision can cover (Article 33a(3) and (6)). The initiation of proceedings interrupts the limitation period for employee claims (Article 33a(8)).
The operative part of the decision specifies the parties, the type of employment contract, the date of its conclusion, the type of work, the place of work, working time and remuneration (Article 34(2b)). If the evidence does not make it possible to establish these, the decision specifies a contract for an indefinite period, the employer's registered office, full-time employment and the minimum wage (Article 34(2e)). The inspector takes into account the facts as at the time of the inspection – from the day it began (Article 34(2d)).
As a rule, the date of conclusion of the employment contract is the date on which the decision is issued (Article 34(2f)). However, if after the start of the inspection the principal terminates the contract with or without notice, the contract expires, or the actual performance of work ceases on the principal's initiative, the date of conclusion of the employment contract is the day on which the inspection began, and the provisions on protection against termination of an employment contract with and without notice apply to the parties (Article 34(2g)–(2h)). Ending the cooperation "just in case" during an inspection therefore does not remove the problem.
From the day it is issued, the decision has the effects of a finding that an employment relationship exists for the purposes of labour law, tax law, social insurance and health insurance (Article 34(2j)). It becomes enforceable after the deadline for an appeal has expired, on the day the court's ruling becomes final, or on the day it is declared immediately enforceable (Article 34(2k)); it may be declared immediately enforceable only with respect to persons enjoying special protection against termination (Article 33a(5)). The issuing of a decision may not be grounds for treating the employee unfavourably (Article 34(2l)) – breach of this prohibition is a separate offence (Article 281 § 1(1b) k.p.).
Appeal to the labour court
An appeal against the decision may be lodged under the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. The most important rules (provisions added to the k.p.c. by the Act of 11 March 2026):
- deadline and route – the appeal is lodged in writing through the District Labour Inspector within one month of service of the decision (Article 477⁷ᵇ § 1 k.p.c.); the court rejects a late appeal unless the delay is not excessive and occurred for reasons beyond the appellant's control (§ 7),
- court – the district court (labour court) in whose area lies the place of work specified in the decision (Article 461 § 11 and § 23 k.p.c.),
- preclusion – all assertions and evidence must be put forward in the appeal; later ones are admissible only if the party shows it is plausible that it could not have put them forward earlier or that the need arose later (Article 477⁷ᵇ § 3–4 k.p.c.),
- self-review – the District Labour Inspector may accept the appeal as justified in its entirety and amend or revoke the decision; otherwise it forwards the appeal to the court together with the case file within one month (Article 477⁷ᵇ § 5–6 k.p.c.),
- parties – the parties to the decision and the District Labour Inspector; a settlement is possible only with the participation of all parties, and arbitration is excluded (Articles 477⁷ᶜ and 477⁷ᵈ k.p.c.),
- immediate enforceability – the court considers an application to lift immediate enforceability, or a complaint against the order granting it (one-week deadline), within 3 days (Article 477⁷ᶠ k.p.c.),
- judgment – the court dismisses the appeal or amends the decision and rules on the merits; in the case of a flagrant breach of the law it revokes the decision and refers the matter back to the inspector (Article 477⁷ᵍ k.p.c.).
For the duration of the dispute the court may grant interim relief under which the contract may be amended or terminated only in accordance with the rules protecting employees against termination (Article 7556 k.p.c.).
The appeal must show that the cooperation did not in fact have the features set out in Article 22 § 1 k.p. We gather evidence separately for each element: who assigned the tasks, the place and time, how remuneration was set, whether substitution was possible, who bore the risk. The testimony of the contractor himself carries great weight.
The fine under Article 281 k.p. and the transitional period until 8 July 2027
Anyone who, being an employer or acting on its behalf, concludes a civil-law contract under conditions in which an employment contract should be concluded is liable to a fine of PLN 2,000 to 60,000 (Article 281 § 1(1) k.p.); before 8 July 2026 the range was PLN 1,000 to 30,000.
The act provides for a transitional period (Article 16 of the amending act). An entity which, before 8 July 2026, concluded a civil-law contract meeting all the features of an employment relationship under Article 22 § 1 k.p. and which, within 12 months of the act's entry into force, i.e. by 8 July 2027, voluntarily concludes an employment contract with that person, is not liable for the offence under Article 281 § 1(1) k.p. We draw attention to the limits of this protection: it concerns only the fine, not the inspector's decision or the contribution and tax consequences. A change in the form of employment must therefore be planned together with settling the past.
Social security and tax consequences
A decision is not solely a matter for the HR department. The amendment changed the Social Insurance System Act and the Tax Ordinance:
- a person covered by the decision is registered for insurance as an employee within 7 days of the day on which the decision became final, and in the case of an appeal – of the court's ruling becoming final (Article 36(4e) of the Social Insurance System Act),
- contributions previously paid in respect of a mandate contract or business activity are credited against amounts due in respect of the employment relationship, and the contribution payer must submit documents to ZUS for the period covered by the decision (Article 38b),
- for the period from the issuing of the decision until it becomes final or until a final judgment, the basis for assessing contributions is the amounts reported under the previous title (Article 18(1b)),
- an appeal against the decision suspends the limitation period for contribution liabilities (Article 24(5h)),
- forwarding the appeal to the court suspends the limitation period for the tax liability (Article 70 § 6(3a) of the Tax Ordinance), and a final decision or final judgment constitutes, for the tax authority, a ruling on a preliminary issue (Article 201 § 1aa o.p.),
- the District Labour Inspector informs the tax authorities that the appeal has been forwarded to the court and that the ruling has become final (Article 19(1a) of the PIP Act).
In its answers to journalists' questions of 6 July 2026, the Ministry of Finance stated that a person covered by a decision will be obliged to correct their PIT returns for the period covered by the decision. That is why, for every decision – and for every plan to change the form of employment voluntarily – we recommend calculating the consequences together with the accounts department or a tax adviser. We also write about disputes with authorities on the page representation before public authorities.
The B2B contractor's perspective
An inspection does not concern only the business. A person working on B2B terms or under a mandate contract is a party to the proceedings concerning the decision and may lodge an appeal with the labour court – even if they do not want a permanent job. Their will is taken into account, provided that it is not contrary to the law and is not aimed at circumventing the rules (Article 33a(4) of the PIP Act).
For the contractor, a decision means employee status with employee rights – holiday leave, protection against termination, working-time rules – but also a change in settlements: a different insurance title and, according to the Ministry of Finance's position, a PIT correction. The issuing of a decision may not be grounds for unfavourable treatment (Article 34(2l)), and the initiation of proceedings interrupts the limitation period for employee claims (Article 33a(8)).
We help contractors assess whether such a classification is favourable to them, prepare their position in the inspection and – if necessary – an appeal.
Gdańsk, Pomerania and the competent authorities
Inspections in Pomerania are conducted by the District Labour Inspectorate in Gdańsk (Okręgowy Inspektorat Pracy w Gdańsku, ul. Marynarki Polskiej 195), with branches in Gdynia, Słupsk, Starogard Gdański and Wejherowo. An appeal against a decision is heard by the labour court competent for the place of work specified in the decision. Within the district of the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) in Gdańsk, labour law cases from Gdańsk and Sopot are heard by the District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) Gdańsk-Południe in Gdańsk, those from the Wejherowo area by the District Court in Gdynia, those from the Kościerzyna area by the District Court in Kartuzy, and those from the Kwidzyn, Starogard Gdański and Tczew areas by the District Court in Malbork (Regulation of the Minister of Justice, consolidated text Dz.U. 2026 poz. 1120).
Our firm is located in Gdańsk at al. Grunwaldzka 87/91 lok. 10. We represent businesses and contractors from the Tri-City and the whole of Pomerania, and we also carry out contract reviews remotely for businesses from other parts of Poland.
Frequently asked questions
Can an inspector classify a B2B contract as an employment contract without going to court?
Since 8 July 2026, yes – the District Labour Inspector may issue a decision finding that an employment relationship exists. The precondition is a prior order of the inspector with which the business has not complied. An appeal against the decision may be lodged with the labour court within one month of service.
Do the new rules apply to contracts concluded before 8 July 2026?
Yes, if the contract was still in force on that day. However, inspections commenced and not completed before 8 July 2026 are conducted under the previous rules.
From when does the decision take effect?
From the day it is issued – as a rule, that date is the date of conclusion of the employment contract. If the principal ends the cooperation after the inspection has begun, the day on which the inspection began is taken as the date of conclusion of the employment contract. For an earlier period the District Labour Inspector may bring an action in court.
How much is the fine for concluding a civil-law contract instead of an employment contract?
From PLN 2,000 to 60,000 (Article 281 § 1(1) of the Labour Code). Anyone who concluded such a contract before 8 July 2026 and voluntarily concludes an employment contract by 8 July 2027 is not liable for this offence – but the protection does not cover the contribution and tax consequences.
Can we ask the PIP in advance how it would assess our contract?
Yes – you can apply to the Chief Labour Inspector for an individual interpretation. The fee is PLN 40 for each separate set of facts, and the interpretation should be issued within 30 days of a complete application. It protects you only with respect to the facts described in the application.
Can a B2B contractor challenge the decision?
Yes. The contractor is a party to the proceedings and may lodge an appeal with the labour court. Their will is taken into account, provided that it is not aimed at circumventing labour law.
What should we do if the inspector has issued an order?
Do not wait for a decision. It is worth presenting your position and documents straight away, calculating the consequences of complying and not complying with the order, and talking to the contractor. We help at each of these stages – please contact us.