Following recent legislative amendments, collective agreements have evolved far beyond being a mere byproduct of negotiations. The new regulations not only define the framework for signing, registering, and monitoring these agreements but also impose rigorous organisational and procedural obligations on companies. Employers must now ensure meaningful participation in negotiations and draft provisions with precision to ensure they are feasible in practice. Therefore, a collective agreement must be approached as a structured process requiring comprehensive planning, auditing, and robust internal organisation. – Sławomir Paruch, Robert Stępień, Paweł Sych, Michał Bodziony, Kinga Ciosk and Mikołaj Wilczek comment for Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
While challenging decisions made by the State Labour Inspection (PIP) and the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) in common courts remains the only appropriate solution, the process presents significant practical obstacles. The courts currently face extensive delays, often taking two or three years to hear such appeals. Consequently, the expectation that such cases can be resolved within a single year is unrealistic. This is further complicated by the fact that a comprehensive evidentiary hearing only occurs for the first time during court proceedings; by contrast, the initial PIP process is far more selective and governed by a different set of procedural rules. – Sławomir Paruch comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
An employer may set out particular provisions concerning bonuses within its internal payroll regulations, collective agreements, or other policies. In general, employers have a free hand in shaping those provisions as long as they are not discriminatory and comply with the principle of equal treatment in employment. In our view, both before and after the implementation of the new regulations on 1 January 2026, employers remain entitled to stipulate that only periods of service under a contract of employment should be taken into account when calculating eligibility for a long-service award. If there are no specific internal regulations, current statutory provisions will apply. Therefore, all forms of employment arrangements must be taken into account when calculating bonuses. – Patryk Kozieł comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
The Labour Protection Council is actively seeking to increase the supervisory powers of both the Marshal of the Sejm and the Council itself regarding the State Labour Inspection (PIP). Key proposals include the introduction of mandatory periodic audits, alongside a more streamlined process for requesting Supreme Audit Office (NIK) inspections. Ultimately, the more efficient, fair, and accountable PIP serves the best interests of employees and employers alike. – Sławomir Paruch, comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
We are increasingly encountering situations where trade unions claim broader powers than those actually conferred by law. In most cases, this is not a result of a deliberate attempt to overreach, but rather a consequence of complicated regulations clashing with established but outdated practices. Consequently, it is essential to revisit the basics of union relations and clarify which actions are grounded in law and which have simply become conventional practice over time. – Sławomir Paruch and Kinga Ciosk comment to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
Current legal remedies, particularly civil actions, are rarely used due to lengthy proceedings and the potential strain on employer-employee relationships. While successful court proceedings are free of charge for employees, engaging a professional solicitor requires considerable resources. Misdemeanor sanctions, however, offer a faster response and ensure that irregularities in pay and recruitment are detected and corrected much earlier in the process. – Kinga Polewka-Włoch comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
In most cases, payment in lieu of untaken holiday will be made alongside the final salary for the last month of employment. The exception set out in paragraph 5 applies in practice only to situations where the company pays the monthly salary on a date other than the last day of the month (e.g. 28th or 29th). In such instances, it will be necessary to process the transfer on a date other than the standard payday; however, under the new provisions, the employer may wait up to 10 days from the termination of the employment contract. Consequently, companies have benefited from this regulatory change. – Michał Włodarczyk comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
The development of parental support schemes should be underpinned by the conviction that employers will not only embrace new regulations but actually benefit from their implementation. Without this focus, we risk creating a framework that is too burdensome and prohibitively restrictive. These mechanisms must be built upon a genuine balance of interests and a sense of shared responsibility on both sides. While our current legal framework is extensive enough, its complexity can make it difficult to navigate. The focus should now shift towards effective implementation and fostering a mutual understanding that these measures serve the interests of both employers and employees alike. – Sławomir Paruch shares this insight during the debate ‘Let’s talk about the rights of working parents’ organised by the State Labour Inspection.
The proposed reforms are both necessary and welcome, yet they fail to address the core of the issue. While these changes mitigate the consequences of the Social Insurance Institution’s (ZUS) flawed practices, they do not resolve the underlying cause. This stems from a lack of regulations that would either prohibit challenging the insurance coverage after many years or explicitly mandate that ZUS verifies the basis for such coverage from the outset. If it is immediately apparent that a controlling shareholder cannot be employed under a standard contract of employment – as ZUS argues – there is no justification for delaying such an assessment for fifteen years. – Łukasz Chruściel, comments to Dziennik Gazeta Prawna.
