Selecting the correct employment basis for a company management board member is key, as the choice significantly affects their remuneration structure. Each of these models carries different consequences regarding the calculation of social security contributions and income tax. Understanding these distinctions is necessary to avoid errors and potential sanctions following a company inspection that reveals non-compliance. – Sandra Szybak-Bizacka and Mariusz Maksis discuss this in the Rzeczpospolita article.
A key worry concerning the new National Labour Inspection bill is that the measure preventing dismissal simply because a contract based on the Civil Code is reclassified as a formal employment contract is not fully thought-out. This lack of foresight could significantly impact numerous contractors who will transition to employee status. For these workers, the rules covering collective redundancy will certainly apply. As a result, the employer could terminate the new employment contracts using reasons such as business necessity. – Łukasz Chruściel discusses this with Paweł Blajer for BIZNES24.
There is no fundamental objection to giving trade unions access to information about the operation of algorithms or AI systems. The issue is not the legislation’s aim but the poorly drafted clause. It relies on imprecise terms such as: ‘parameters, rules, instructions that influence decision-making and may affect ‘work and pay terms and conditions’. As nearly all employer decisions can indirectly impact those terms and conditions, this unclear wording increases the potential for disputes. Employers are likely to withhold data, claiming a decision was irrelevant or ‘did not affect terms and conditions of employment’. Conversely, trade unions will demand wider access to information, based on the algorithm’s potential to affect work and pay terms and conditions. – Łukasz Chruściel comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
Moving to a digital token solution for benefits requires meticulous system design, especially concerning legal compliance, tax liabilities, and social contributions. The key requirement is to formally establish the benefit’s operational rules within the employer’s internal policies and to clearly specify its function. Organisations must be particularly cautious when using ready-made templates, as they may not adequately reflect the unique requirements of their structure. – Sławomir Paruch comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
The new electronic recruitment system launching this December will modernise the process for civil service candidates. This coincides with the coming into force of an amendment to the Labour Code stipulating that from 24 December, employers must ensure all recruitment advertisements and job titles are gender-neutral and that the hiring process is entirely non-discriminatory. Kinga Polewka-Włoch comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna: “Specifying a gendered role like ‘chairman’ is insufficient; the language must include the option of a ‘chairwoman’ (and vice versa). This requires an administrative review of all job titles to ensure linguistic neutrality, mirroring the shifts we already see in correspondence where people sign off as ‘chair’ or ‘press spokesperson,’ rather than relying on traditionally gendered titles.”
From 1 January 2026, new regulations will most likely take effect, granting National Labour Inspectorate inspectors definitive power to determine the legal form of a contract between parties. The inspector’s decision will override the intentions and expressed will of the contracting parties, and the contract will be legally amended via an administrative decision.
Critically, this contract reclassification may apply retroactively; the decision’s legal consequences will cover the past, applying from the very beginning of the B2B contract. – Marcin Sanetra discusses this with Paweł Blajer for BIZNES24.
Trade union protection has its limits. It does not safeguard an individual from undergoing standard performance evaluations or facing accountability for failing to meet fundamental employee duties. The protection afforded by active union membership is not a guarantee of immunity from legitimate workplace requirements. – Sławomir Paruch, Robert Stępień, Michał Bodziony and Kinga Ciosk explain for Rzeczpospolita.
According to the new bill concerning the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP), employers who successfully challenge an incorrect PIP decision in court will have the right to claim compensation from the State Treasury. However, this process requires initiating separate proceedings, which could realistically drag on for many years, and any awarded amounts are typically symbolic. Consequently, the bill fails to eliminate existing problems and instead creates significant new risks for entrepreneurs. While the amendment introduces the option of reaching a settlement before the court, it is conditional on the consent of the Chief Labour Inspector. Even though the idea of a settlement process is theoretically appealing, its implementation is expected to be extremely difficult, as the nature of these disputes often leaves no room for compromise. – Łukasz Chruściel and Paweł Sych comment to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
Employer-funded lunch cards can be successfully excluded from Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) contributions. However, employers must ensure the funds are spent correctly and the risk of misuse is minimised. Thus, achieving compliance requires the combined fulfilment of specific conditions. These include precisely defining the types of products that employees are permitted to purchase with the cards and implementing control procedures to monitor card usage. – Sandra Szybak-Bizacka and Anna Szulc comment to Rzeczpospolita.
E-contracts may not catch on among employers. The prospect of sharing contract data directly with the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) is expected to significantly reduce the system’s appeal – at least from an employer’s perspective. Many businesses may fear that using the system could make them a priority target for PIP inspections. Although digital contract documentation inherently reduces some inspection-related risks, the apprehension remains strong. There is a clear role here for PIP itself, which should issue a formal statement to actively dispel these concerns among employers. – Sławomir Paruch, attorney-at-law, comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
