Month: December 2025

Occupational health and safety (OHS) standards are evolving alongside the modern office. With digital transformation and hybrid work models leading to constant connectivity and mounting work pressure, OHS is no longer just about the physical workspace. Managing psychosocial risks and supporting employee mental health is an increasingly critical area of employer responsibility. This shift is not a passing trend, but a firm statutory obligation. – Karolina Kanclerz comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Full article in Polish available: here.

As one of the first EU countries, Poland has published its draft law implementing the Pay Transparency Directive. New law defines, among other things, the rules for assessing the value of work and creating pay structures, measures regarding pay transparency, as well as rules for monitoring employers’ compliance with their obligations and legal protection measures.

The ambitious draft, often going beyond Directive’s minimum obligations, is scheduled to enter into force on 7 June 2026.

Job Evaluation – Equal Work and Work of Equal Value
A key obligation for all employers in Poland, regardless of headcount, will be to conduct objective job evaluations. This task will consist of assessing the value of a specific type of work or a specific position. To this end, employers will need to define criteria and sub-criteria. The mandatory criteria will include skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.

The evaluation process will require cooperation with trade unions. The outcome of this cooperation should be an agreement on the criteria and sub-criteria. Additionally, employers will be required to consult with trade unions on employee categories before they are determined.

Pay Transparency
The criteria used to determine remuneration will need to be transparent, and employers will be required to provide employees with access to information on the criteria for determining and progressing remuneration. This obligation will also apply to employers with fewer than 50 employees – these smaller companies will be obliged to provide information on pay increase criteria only upon employee’s request, within a narrow 14-days deadline.

Employees will also have the right to receive information about their individual pay level, as well as average pay levels by gender within their category. A request for relevant information on behalf of an employee may also be submitted by a trade union or equality body.

Reporting
The reporting obligation will apply only to employers with at least 100 FTE employees in a calendar year. The scope of information required in the reports will be consistent with the categories set out in the Directive.

The first pay gap report will have to be submitted by employers with at least 150 employees by 7 June 2027 (for the period from 7 June 2026 to 31 December 2026).

Employers with at least 250 employees will have to submit reports annually, while those with 100 to 249 employees every three years. The number of employees will also include temporary workers. The report will have to be submitted by 31 March of the given year.

The reporting process will also require cooperation with trade unions. Employers will be obligated to verify the accuracy of the information with the unions. To this end, it will be necessary to provide them with access to the method used to prepare the report.

Joint remuneration assessment
If a pay gap of at least 5% is identified in a given category, the employer will be required to conduct a joint pay assessment in consultation with trade unions or employee reps. Employers will be exempt from this obligation if they justify the pay gap on the basis of objective criteria, or take effective remedial measures within 6 months. The recognition of whether the pay gap has been duly justified or whether effective remedial measures have been implemented will require the consent of the employee side.

The employer will have to implement the measures and remedial actions resulting from the joint pay assessment within 8 months.

Protection of the right to non-discriminatory remuneration
The National Labor Inspectorate will also be authorized to pursue claims arising from violations of the principle of equal treatment with the consent of the employee. These claims will include the right to compensation or damages in an amount not lower than the minimum wage. The compensation should include full recovery of outstanding remuneration and other lost components.

What is particularly important is that if an employer infringes on its obligations regarding transparency of remuneration, it will be incumbent on the employer to prove that it was guided by objective reasons, even if the person alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment does not substantiate discrimination. However, this rule will not apply if the employer proves that the breach of obligations was unintentional and marginal.

Penalties for failure to comply with obligations
Violation of the provisions of the Act may result in a fine of between PLN 3,000 (EUR 700, USD 850) and PLN 50,000 (EUR 12,000; USD 14,000) per violation, which may be imposed on the employing entity or a person acting on its behalf. The list of offences includes, in particular, failure to carry out a job evaluation, failure to provide access to information on criteria, failure to disclose individual information to employees, failure to prepare reports or provide other required information, or failure to take follow-up action after identifying a pay gap.

Important!
The use of provisions in employment contracts prohibiting employees from disclosing the amount of their remuneration will also be subject to fines.

The draft also provides for changes to the list of offences under the Labor Code, punishable by fines of up to PLN 30,000 (EUR 7,000; USD 8,500) per violation. It will be extended to include obtaining data from candidates other than that specified in the Labor Code, failing to provide candidates with information about their initial salary or salary range and the relevant remuneration regulations, and failing to use gender-neutral job titles in job advertisements.

For many employers, December carries a high risk of breaching working time rules. The deliberate, planned, and lawful management of work schedules is not only a statutory obligation but also a vital component in building team trust. Strategic rotation, fair compensation, and a commitment to employee rest periods ensure that even the busiest trading period can proceed smoothly, avoiding conflicts and the risk of labour inspections. By viewing regulations as a helpful framework rather than an obstacle, employers can navigate December efficiently and without the typical end-of-year chaos. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch and Michalina Lewandowska-Alama comment to Rzeczpospolita.

Full article in Polish available: here.

The core of the dispute over returning to the office often lies in the contractual documentation—and that is where definitive answers can be found. If the employment contract explicitly stipulates the specific days for remote and in-office work, the employer cannot alter this arrangement unilaterally. This necessitates formal modification, typically via an annex or a formal notice of amendment. However, if the contract merely describes the work as ‘hybrid’ and defines the place of work as both the office and a remote location, the employer retains the right to issue a clear instruction to return, provided this is based on objective organisational reasons. Equivalent rules apply when the framework for remote work is detailed within the company’s internal rules and regulations. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.

Holding the same job title within a company does not automatically mean that employees perform work of equal value. Practical differences in duties and responsibilities may result in classifying employees into distinct professional groups or may justifiably lead to variations in remuneration, even when employees share the same group designation. Consequently, the assessment of work value must include a practical evaluation of the duties and responsibilities specific to each work area. Collecting relevant data is an essential step in shaping a remuneration structure compliant with the principle of equal treatment. – Patryk Kozieł comments to Rzeczpospolita.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.

Employer liability for workplace bullying is not absolute; it can be mitigated where the organisation can prove the establishment of suitable anti-bullying procedures and a diligent response to every complaint of misconduct. Under these conditions, direct personal liability to the victim may instead fall upon the actual perpetrator (the ‘bully’). This underlines the crucial role of prevention: creating an open working environment with clear communication protocols, where unacceptable behaviour is promptly identified and eradicated. Consequently, effective anti-bullying frameworks serve as both a commitment to staff welfare and, critically, a tool for safeguarding the company’s interests. – Robert Stępień, Michał Bodziony, Kinga Ciosk and Artur Dubelt comment to Rzeczpospolita.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.

Employment law needs to keep pace with digitalisation and modern working tools. Simple and consistent regulation would significantly ease administrative burdens for both employees and employers.

In the context of document digitisation, current labour legislation is ambiguous. For instance, the terms ‘paper form’ and ‘electronic form’ are undefined, which leads to considerable confusion in practice. Notably, apart from a few specific instances (such as non-competition agreements), the Labour Code does not deem actions invalid if they fail to meet the written form requirement. Consequently, a termination communicated verbally or via email remains legally valid but technically defective and is therefore open to challenge in a labour court. – Łukasz Chruściel comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Full article in Polish avialible: tutaj.

Industrial action serves as a vital way for trade unions to express their stance and strengthen their leverage with management. Yet, to ensure their legality, these actions must strictly comply with statutory requirements and cannot unduly disrupt the workplace’s normal operations. The legal obligation to hold a referendum also applies to warning strikes. Consequently, even a two-hour work stoppage requires the trade union to secure prior majority support from the employees before proceeding. – Sławomir Paruch and Kinga Ciosk comment to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.

Employers often ask if their Social Fund rules can lawfully exclude employees on parental leave from accessing specific benefits without it being considered discriminatory. The short answer is no.  The Company Social Fund rules must not contain any clause barring employees on parental leave from receiving benefits. Such actions would breach the Company Social Fund Act and could be considered as an act of employment discrimination. – Łukasz Chruściel and Anna Szulc comment to Rzeczpospolita.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.

The Supreme Court recently clarified that Article 36(1) of the Social Insurance for Accidents at Work and Occupational Diseases Act of 30 October 2002 provides a criminal and administrative sanction. This penalty targets employers who endanger their staff by committing serious breaches of health and safety regulations. The penalty provision is contingent upon the discovery of ‘a flagrant violation of regulations’ and requires the sequence of ‘two consecutive inspections’. Therefore, it is clear that the contribution payer will be subject to a penalty if, after the first inspection, another serious breach of health and safety regulations for which they are responsible is found during the next inspection. This means that if the second inspection was carried out immediately after the first one but concerned the period prior to the date of the first inspection, then, as a rule, Article 36(1) of the Act cannot be applied. – Sandra Szybak-Bizacka and Agata Ankersztajn comment to Legalis.

Full article in Polish avialible: here.