What’s on the horizon for HR departments in 2026?

To start, which of the changes in HR law that are coming in 2026 do you think will be the most important?

Observing the market and our clients’ inquiries, I would highlight two key changes. First, the expansion of the powers of Poland’s national labour inspectorate (PIP) and the ability to convert civil law contracts into employment relationships via administrative decisions. Although the current draft of the Act is much less controversial than previous versions, PIP is still gaining a powerful tool.

The second major change will be the full implementation of pay transparency and equality regulations. We already saw the first shifts last year, such as the requirement to use gender-neutral language or providing candidates with salary ranges and/or relevant pay provisions. Although Poland performs better than most EU member states in this regard, there is still an 8% gap that needs improvement.

Let’s talk about the PIP changes. What will it mean for employers to grant PIP this new power?

It will certainly be a faster and easier path for labour inspectors compared to the court route. Currently, an inspector must file a lawsuit and present evidence to convince an independent court that a civil law contract is, in fact, an employment relationship. This was far more labour-intensive than the proposed solution. Data shows that in 2024, labour inspectors filed only 24 such lawsuits, and only four ended in success.

The current draft stipulates that an inspector should first issue an order to sign an employment contract. Only if the employer fails to comply will the inspector issue a formal administrative decision. This will obviously speed up PIP’s actions, but it places the employer in a disadvantageous procedural position. In an appeal, it will be the entrepreneur who must prove that the contract does not meet the criteria of an employment relationship.

Despite this, the changes in the draft should be viewed positively compared to earlier versions. Most importantly, the decision will take effect on the day it is issued and will generally become enforceable upon the expiry of the appeal deadline or once a court ruling becomes final. Consequently, the financial implications will be much smaller. Under the first draft, an employer’s liability could go back up to five years. Experts calculated that for a B2B contractor earning 15,000 złotys a month, this could result in back payments of several hundred thousand zlotys. In an IT company with multiple such high earners, a single audit could have led to bankruptcy. Another positive change is the lack of automatic immediate enforceability.

What would you advise companies that fear rising operational costs due to PIP audits?

Exactly what I advise our clients now: the time to act is today. While we often successfully help clients after an audit has started, it is much more comfortable to act pre-emptively. We are currently conducting several projects auditing civil law contracts – not just their text, but the way they are actually performed. Our reports help clients adjust how contractors work to avoid unfavourable decisions. If a report shows no major issues, it can serve as evidence to dissuade an inspector from issuing a decision. Simply put, prevention is better than a cure.

What stands out to you regarding the pay transparency project? What should employers keep in mind?

HR departments will face many new responsibilities. Most of the talk is about the requirement to report on the gender pay gap -– large employers (at least 150 employees) will be required to do this by 7 June 2027.

However, other obligations must not be forgotten, including:

• Conducting job evaluations (value of work).
• Ensuring access to objective criteria used to determine pay.
• Responding to employee requests regarding individual and average pay levels.
• Conducting a ‘joint pay assessment’.

It’s also important to note that in workplaces with trade unions, those unions will play an active role, having the right to demand information and consultation/agreement powers.

The media mentions heavy fines for violating pay transparency rules. Do employers have reason to worry?

The media loves to scare people with high penalties, such as for failing to use gender-neutral job titles. Currently, PIP does not have the power to fine employers for this, but such a change is indeed planned.

However, it’s hard for me to imagine an extreme case where an employer is fined tens of thousands of zlotys for a job title. That said, smaller fines are realistic – the chief labour inspector confirmed in an interview that such complaints are already reaching the office.

Another interesting provision relates to ‘pay secrecy’ clauses. An employer who includes clauses in contracts or internal regulations prohibiting employees from disclosing their salary faces a fine of up to 50,000 złotys. It is worth reviewing employment contract templates and internal regulations in this regard.

Another change announced by the Ministry of Labour is the simplification of the definition of workplace bullying and harassment (the Polish legal term for this is ‘mobbing’, whether perpetrated by a group or an individual). What’s your take on this?

The current definition is far too difficult. The statistics are ruthless – in 2024, only about 6% of court cases ended in a finding of workplace bullying and harassment. For this reason, I am strongly in favour of making the definition more understandable for employees. On the other hand, we must also educate employees that criticism of their work is not always synonymous with workplace bullying – which is reflected in the latest draft. I also view positively the explicit right for employers to seek compensation directly from the perpetrator of the bullying.

We are lucky to work for fantastic clients who want to create workplaces free from undesirable behaviour. Just like with B2B audits, if anyone is wondering whether to act now or wait for the law to take effect – I strongly recommend acting now. There is nothing stopping you from conducting anti-bullying and anti-discrimination training today.

Don’t you think simplifying the definition of workplace bullying and harassment will lead to an increase in lawsuits? Courts in large cities are already overwhelmed.

Of course, that risk exists. However, I believe the main factor increasing the number of cases was the removal of court fees for employment cases a few years ago. It’s undeniable that the wait time for a labour court ruling is already far too long. When our lawyers tell foreign colleagues that a case regarding a notice period can take five or six years in Warsaw across two instances – while the dispute is over three months’ salary – they often can’t believe it.

There is also much talk about changes to sick leave (L4). Will the new rules effectively reduce abuses?

Regulations alone won’t solve systemic problems. Platforms that allow people to get sick leave without a real consultation are a major issue, raising doubts about the reliability of health assessments.

However, I view the possibility of working in one job while being on sick leave in another (if the nature of the work allows) as a positive. For example, a person with both a physical and an office job could still work at a computer if they have a broken leg.

A second positive change is the ability to perform ‘incidental activities’ while on sick leave –tasks that, if left undone, could lead to significant financial loss for the employer (such as signing an invoice or a shipping document). Until now, Poland’s social-security institution, ZUS, would often strip someone of their benefits even if their ‘work’ was just signing one document.

I know you are passionate about building relations with trade unions. How do you evaluate the planned changes regarding collective bargaining agreements?

The act was intended to create incentives for collective agreements, but in its current form, it’s hard to say that goal has been achieved. The regulations focus mainly on digitalisation and administration, rather than mechanisms that truly motivate employers. In practice, employers prefer internal regulations because they are simpler, less formal, and easier to change.

Additionally, the act unfortunately does not solve the problem of ‘perpetual clauses’ in collective agreements. Many employers were hoping for a way to terminate ‘forever’ agreements that contain unfavourable solutions (like automatic inflation raises). Current analysis suggests no effective mechanism was provided to terminate such agreements.

Are there any changes that get less media attention but might be beneficial for employers?

At a conference celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Labour Code organised by our firm, we asked participants which change they desired most. The answer was unanimous: moving away from wet ink. Poland is one of the most digitally advanced countries in Europe, so I am very happy about legal and technical changes – like the qualifying signature in the mObywatel app. I hope the legislator continues in this direction. Currently, requiring a traditional signature on a termination notice has lost its original justification. Decades ago, it confirmed the statement came from an authorised person; today, with corporate email, there is no doubt about the author or recipient. This is even more important because the law often uses the phrase ‘in writing’ rather than ‘in written form’, which opens the door for a change in judicial interpretation, something I’ve been advocating for years.

Final thoughts about what else the employers shall also keep in mind?

Yes. Employee mental health is crucial; so employers’ efforts to ensure well-being are vital. We are preparing mental-health policies for our clients, and they are becoming more popular every year. And employee behaviour online; last year, we ran a series of webinars on this, which showed us how many challenges there are – from making employees realise that online actions can damage an employer’s reputation, to fighting hate and false comments, to ensuring confidentiality isn’t accidentally breached via a social-media post.

Interview conducted by Patryk Kryczało, a lawyer from PCS Paruch Chruściel Stępień Kanclerz.