New PIP powers: when can a B2B or civil-law contract be recognised as an employment contract?

Since 8 July 2026, the Polish National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy – PIP) has had broader powers to inspect civil-law contracts and B2B arrangements. The most significant change is that a district labour inspector may issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship.

The new regulations do not prohibit B2B contracts, contracts of mandate or contracts for specific work. However, they increase the risk of such contracts being challenged if the actual conditions under which the work is performed correspond to regular employment.

The actual conditions matter, not the name of the contract

The fundamental criteria for determining an employment relationship have not changed. They are still defined in Article 22 of the Polish Labour Code.

An employment relationship may exist when a person:

performs work personally and receives remuneration;
works under the direction of a supervisor;
works at a place and during hours determined by the company;
regularly performs assigned duties;
is integrated into the company’s organisational structure;
does not bear genuine business risk.

If these conditions exist in practice, naming the agreement a “B2B contract”, “contract of mandate” or “contract for specific work” does not determine its legal nature. The inspector will assess how the cooperation actually operates, not only the wording of the signed agreement.

When is a B2B arrangement safer?

B2B remains a legal form of cooperation. The risk of it being recognised as an employment relationship is lower when the contractor:

organises their work independently;
decides when, where and how the services are performed;
may provide services to other clients;
is responsible for a specific result or defined scope of services;
uses their own equipment and tools;
bears their own costs and business risk;
is not subject to ongoing managerial instructions;
may use subcontractors where the nature of the assignment allows it;
independently determines periods of leave and absence.

No single factor determines the outcome. PIP will examine the cooperation as a whole.

What increases the risk of an inspection?

The risk is higher when a contractor formally operates as a business but, in practice:

works fixed hours every day;
is required to work from an office or another designated location;
reports directly to a supervisor;
follows ongoing instructions in the same way as employees;
cannot refuse individual tasks;
must perform the work personally;
receives fixed monthly remuneration regardless of results;
uses only the company’s equipment and infrastructure;
must obtain approval for leave or any absence;
performs the same duties under the same conditions as employees working under employment contracts.

Including contractual clauses concerning the contractor’s independence will not be sufficient if the actual working arrangements are different.

What decisions can PIP make?

If, following an inspection, the inspector concludes that the work is performed under conditions characteristic of an employment relationship, the district labour inspector may:

issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship;
refer the matter to a labour court, particularly when employment must be established for an earlier period.

A PIP decision may be appealed before a labour court. The appeal must be filed within one month of the date on which the decision is served.

The new regulations also apply to agreements concluded before 8 July 2026 if the cooperation continues after that date.

Possible consequences for the company

Recognising the cooperation as an employment relationship may require the company to:

formally employ the person;
register them with ZUS as an employee;
settle the applicable social security contributions and taxes;
pay employee benefits;
settle outstanding holiday entitlement, overtime or minimum remuneration;
pay a fine for violating labour law.

The extent of the consequences depends on the content of the decision, the period covered by the proceedings and the individual circumstances of the case.

PIP may also exchange information more effectively with ZUS and the Polish tax authorities. This makes it easier to identify companies where the number of civil-law contracts or the way in which they are settled indicates an increased risk of irregularities.

What should a business owner do?

Companies using B2B contracts, contracts of mandate or contracts for specific work should examine not only the contractual documents but, above all, the actual organisation of the cooperation.

It is worth determining:

who decides when and where the services are performed;
whether the contractor receives managerial instructions;
whether the contractor may work for other clients;
whether the contractor bears genuine business risk;
whether they are responsible for a result or merely for remaining available;
whether they must obtain approval for absences;
whether their situation genuinely differs from that of regular employees.

If the cooperation operates like an employment relationship in practice, simply rewriting the contract will not resolve the problem. The company will need either to conclude an employment contract or genuinely change the terms and organisation of the cooperation.

The amendment does not mean that every B2B contract will automatically be converted into an employment contract. However, it significantly increases the importance of properly structuring and documenting relationships with contractors.

Legal basis: Act of 11 March 2026 amending the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate and certain other acts, Journal of Laws of 2026, item 473. The regulations have been in force since 8 July 2026. Official text of the Act in ISAP