The Polish Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (PIP)) has started publishing individual interpretations concerning one of the most important questions for businesses using contractors in Poland: does a particular civil-law or B2B relationship in fact constitute an employment relationship?
As of 20 August 2026, eight interpretations are available in the PIP public database. The first decisions already provide useful guidance on how the Inspectorate approaches independent contractors, mandate agreements and B2B arrangements.
What is an individual PIP interpretation?
Since 8 July 2026, an entity subject to PIP supervision may apply to the Chief Labour Inspector for an individual interpretation.
The application may concern an existing arrangement or a cooperation model which the business plans to introduce in the future.
The applicant describes the relevant facts and presents its own position as to whether the relationship constitutes employment within the meaning of Article 22 § 1 of the Polish Labour Code.
The fee is PLN 40 for each separate factual situation or future event, and the interpretation should be issued within 30 days after a complete application has been submitted.
Why should other businesses follow the published interpretations?
An interpretation issued to another company does not protect your business and does not operate as a binding precedent.
It does, however, show how the Polish Labour Inspectorate is currently distinguishing genuine independent contracting from relationships which have the characteristics of employment.
This has become particularly important following the 2026 reform of the Labour Inspectorate and its increased powers to determine the existence of an employment relationship.
The interpretations are published after the identifying details of the applicant and other parties have been removed. Each issued interpretation is also forwarded to the Polish Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and the National Revenue Administration (KAS). The legislation expressly states that the interpretation is binding on PIP authorities; it does not provide the same binding effect in relation to ZUS or KAS.
The first eight decisions: three favourable and five unfavourable
The first published interpretations concern very different types of cooperation.
PIP accepted the applicant’s position that no employment relationship existed in models involving, among others:
- sales, marketing, business lead generation and business development services,
- IT contractors, including contractors performing project management functions,
- drivers performing additional bakery delivery routes under civil-law contracts.
Other applicants were unsuccessful. The unfavourable interpretations concerned, among others, temporary work arrangements, drivers and carers transporting children, and students engaged as sales and production workers under mandate agreements.
This does not mean that IT services can automatically be provided on a B2B basis or that sales or production work must automatically be performed under an employment contract.
The actual organisation of the relationship remains decisive.
What factors supported independent contractor status?
The favourable interpretations are particularly useful.
In the sales and marketing case, PIP noted that the contractors were free to determine where and when they performed the services, were not subject to ongoing instructions on how to work and could use substitutes. The arrangement also focused on commercial results, such as obtaining leads and new customers, rather than simply remaining available to perform work.
The IT interpretation provides another practical example.
A contractor could refuse a particular order and the company was not required to provide a continuous flow of work. Recording hours was used to calculate fees and issue invoices rather than to monitor compliance with an employee working-time schedule.
The contractors were responsible for improper performance, could provide services to other clients and were not covered by internal employment regulations or employee benefits.
Interestingly, the use of company-provided IT equipment or systems did not in itself create an employment relationship where this was justified by cybersecurity, confidentiality and data protection requirements.
What increases the risk of reclassification?
The published interpretations confirm that subordination remains one of the central issues.
The risk of an employment relationship increases where the business:
- determines the contractor’s working hours and place of work,
- gives ongoing and binding instructions on how individual tasks must be performed,
- requires continuous availability,
- integrates the contractor into its normal work organisation,
- requires strictly personal performance,
- bears substantially all of the risk connected with the work.
In its interpretations, PIP repeatedly refers to direct and binding instructions concerning the day-to-day performance of work as one of the most important features distinguishing employment from a civil-law relationship.
Should a business apply for its own PIP interpretation?
For some cooperation models, this may be worth considering.
An individual interpretation is binding on PIP authorities. A business which follows the interpretation obtained in its own case cannot be subjected to administrative or financial sanctions or penalties within the scope in which it complied with that interpretation.
There is an important limitation.
The protection applies to the situation actually described in the application. If a later inspection establishes that the cooperation operates differently in practice, PIP may assess its true nature independently.
For example, an application may state that a contractor independently determines their working hours. If, in reality, the individual is expected to work every day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. according to a schedule imposed by the company, the interpretation may not provide the expected protection.
What should foreign businesses operating in Poland review?
Companies using Polish contractors should not review the contract alone.
They should also examine the day-to-day working model: who decides when and where services are provided, who determines the method of performing individual tasks, whether the contractor can reject assignments, whether substitution is genuinely possible and who bears responsibility for the commercial result.
The newly published PIP interpretations are likely to become an important practical reference point for businesses using B2B and other civil-law arrangements in Poland.
The key question remains unchanged: is the person genuinely providing independent services, or are they in practice working under the direction and organisation of the company like an employee?
This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. Assessing a specific case requires reviewing the documents.