Revolution in B2B contracts as inspectors gain new powers

A long-awaited government bill extending the powers of PIP, the national labour inspectorate, has been submitted to the Sejm. The reform is not merely technical. It is one of the so-called milestones linked to the disbursement of funds under the National Recovery Plan, which means that its implementation has become a political priority for 2026.

If implemented in its current form, the reform will reshape the risk profile of companies operating under B2B arrangements and civil law contracts. Although flexible forms of cooperation will remain legally available, they will be exposed to closer examination and more intensive scrutiny. For companies, this translates into heightened financial and operational exposure – potential retroactive social security contributions, tax adjustments, employment benefits claims, and administrative penalties

Inspectors will retain the power to reclassify contracts
Under the latest version of amendments submitted to the Sejm, labour inspectors will continue to have the authority to issue administrative decisions confirming the existence of an employment relationship.

In practice, this means that a B2B contract or a civil law contract may be reclassified as an employment contract if the factual circumstances indicate that the statutory features of employment are present. However, compared with earlier proposals, the labour inspectors’ entitlements have been limited.

Two-stage control procedure – a ‘safeguard’ mechanism
According to the draft, the district labour inspector will no longer issue a decision immediately after identifying irregularities. Instead, the procedure will consist of two stages.

First, the inspector will issue an order to remedy the identified violations. This order may require the company to adjust the cooperation model, amend specific contractual provisions or conclude an employment contract with the contractor.

Only if the employer fails to comply with that order will the inspector be entitled to initiate formal administrative proceedings and issue a decision confirming the existence of an employment relationship.

This mechanism creates a limited window for corrective action. It does not eliminate risk, but it allows companies to mitigate exposure before an administrative decision is issued.

Limited retroactivity, but broader litigation risk
According to the draft, an inspector’s decision will primarily produce effects for the future. It will not automatically apply retroactively.

Nevertheless, the district labour inspector will retain the power to bring an action before a court to determine the existence of an employment relationship for a period preceding the decision. This means that historical cooperation models may still be challenged through judicial proceedings.

In parallel, enhanced cooperation and data exchange between the PIP, ZUS (the social security institution) and the tax administration are expected. This institutional coordination may lead to more targeted inspections and cross-verification of information.

 Appeal procedure and judicial protection
An inspector’s decision may be appealed to the labour court, through the issuing authority, within one month of its delivery. What is particularly important, however, is that the appellant will be required to present all arguments and evidence in the appeal itself. Raising additional arguments at a later stage may be significantly hindered.

The labour inspector’s decision will have legal effect from the date of its issuance – not only from a labour law perspective, but also in terms of taxes (PIT, VAT, CIT) and social security. However, it will become enforceable only after the expiry of the deadline for filing an appeal or upon a final court judgement.

Importantly, the labour court will be able to grant protective measures for the duration of the dispute. The protective measure is intended to ensure that, during the proceedings, the contract can be amended or terminated only in accordance with the rules applicable under labour law, including those relating to the special protection of employees.

In practice, this may substantially limit the employer’s ability to terminate the relationship during the proceedings. The protective effect may apply to both fixed-term and indefinite arrangements once reclassified.

From a risk management perspective, this increases litigation exposure and reduces operational flexibility during disputes.

Individual rulings – a new preventive tool
One of the most noteworthy elements of the draft is the introduction of individual rulings issued by PIP. The model is inspired by mechanisms already known in tax law and in the practice of ZUS.

Entrepreneurs will be able to request an official assessment of a planned cooperation model. That assessment:

• will be binding for PIP
• will not be formally binding for the employer
• compliance with it will preclude the imposition of sanctions within its scope.

If implemented effectively, this instrument may serve as a preventive tool. It could allow businesses to assess the risk of reclassification before launching a specific B2B structure.

However, such interpretations will not replace the need for proper documentation and alignment between contractual provisions and actual practice.

Key risks for companies
The reform is likely to result in:

• Increased challenges to B2B models and civil law contracts
• Prolonged court disputes and higher legal costs
• Potential financial burdens once decisions become final, including taxes, employment-related claims and contributions

The cumulative effect is not only financial; reclassification disputes may affect workforce planning, business continuity and reputational standing.

How to prepare now
The draft law is still at the governmental stage and has not yet been submitted to parliament. According to its current wording, it is to enter into force three months after its official publication.

Waiting until the final adoption would be a strategic mistake. Companies relying on B2B cooperation should already undertake structured preparatory measures.

First, conduct a comprehensive audit of B2B contracts and civil law agreements. Assess whether the contractual framework reflects genuine independence, including the absence of subordination, control and integration typical for employment. Prepare a documented business justification for the use of non-employment models.

Second, verify the actual manner of cooperation. Inspectors will focus on practice rather than declarations. Analyse how work is organised, how performance is supervised, how remuneration is structured and whether evidence collected in the organisation supports the contractual narrative.

Third, prepare internal procedures for inspections by PIP. Designate responsible persons, define document retention standards and ensure consistency in communication. Training management staff is essential, as statements made during inspections may later become evidentiary material.

The forthcoming reform does not prohibit flexible forms of cooperation. It does, however, raise the compliance threshold. In an environment of strengthened inspection powers and institutional coordination, proactive risk assessment and structural alignment between law and practice become indispensable elements of corporate governance.

Anna Misiak, tax adviser and partner, Head of Personal Tax Practice and Advisory Services for Employers at MDDP

Rafał Sidorowicz, tax adviser and senior manager in Personal Tax Practice and Advisory Services for Employers at MDDP

Agnieszka Telakowska-Harasiewicz, tax adviser and senior manager in Personal Tax Practice and Advisory Services for Employers at MDDP