{"id":1455,"date":"2026-08-25T15:57:39","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T13:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/b2b-contractors-polish-it-labour-inspectorate-interpretation\/"},"modified":"2026-08-25T15:57:39","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T13:57:39","slug":"b2b-contractors-polish-it-labour-inspectorate-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/b2b-contractors-polish-it-labour-inspectorate-interpretation\/","title":{"rendered":"B2B contractors in Polish IT: what can businesses learn from a favourable Labour Inspectorate interpretation?"},"content":{"rendered":"

On 29 July 2026, the Chief Labour Inspector issued a favourable individual interpretation concerning an IT company’s cooperation with B2B contractors.<\/p>\n

The Inspectorate concluded that the arrangements described by the company did not constitute employment relationships. Importantly, the interpretation covered both IT specialists and contractors performing project management functions.<\/p>\n

The decision is useful because it shows which practical features may support genuine independent contractor status in Poland.<\/p>\n

What did the cooperation model look like?<\/h2>\n

The company entered into framework B2B agreements with individual entrepreneurs. Specific services were then commissioned under separate orders defining the scope of work, remuneration and performance conditions. A contractor could refuse an order, while the company was not required to guarantee a continuous flow of assignments. The company could define the project, expected results, deadlines and quality standards. It did not, however, impose binding rules concerning the contractor’s place, working hours or detailed method of performing the services.<\/p>\n

For the Labour Inspectorate, the absence of employment-type subordination was crucial.<\/p>\n

Recording hours does not automatically create employment<\/h2>\n

The contractors could be paid under a time-and-material model and were required to record the number of hours spent on the services. The Inspectorate accepted that this did not amount to employee working-time control. According to the facts presented in the application, time records were used to calculate fees and issue invoices rather than to verify compliance with an employee work schedule. Similarly, a service availability window between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. did not determine the contractor’s actual starting and finishing times.<\/p>\n

This is an important distinction for companies using B2B arrangements<\/a>: recording time for billing purposes is not necessarily the same as controlling an employee’s working time.<\/p>\n

Company equipment may be compatible with B2B<\/h2>\n

The contractors could also be required to use devices, software and access credentials specified by the company.<\/p>\n

This did not lead the Inspectorate to classify the relationship as employment because the requirements resulted from cybersecurity, data protection and information security obligations.<\/p>\n

This point is particularly relevant to IT businesses, where providing a contractor with company equipment or access to internal systems may be necessary for security reasons.<\/p>\n

The contractor bore commercial risk<\/h2>\n

Several other features supported independent contractor status.<\/p>\n

The contractors were paid for services actually performed. They were not entitled to remuneration merely for being available or for periods in which no order was being performed. They were contractually liable for improper or delayed performance, including under contractual penalty provisions. They could also provide services to other clients and, subject to the company’s consent, appoint another person to perform the services. The contractors were not covered by the company’s work regulations, remuneration rules, social benefits fund or employee rights such as paid annual leave and overtime protection.<\/p>\n

Taken together, these factors indicated that they operated as independent service providers bearing their own commercial risk.<\/p>\n

Can a project manager work on a B2B basis?<\/h2>\n

The interpretation also addressed contractors acting as project managers.<\/p>\n

These contractors allocated project tasks, prepared schedules, conducted project meetings, monitored progress and reported to the relevant product owner or manager.<\/p>\n

The Labour Inspectorate nevertheless accepted that this did not create an employment relationship.<\/p>\n

A key factor was that the contractor-project manager had no employer powers over team members. They could not hire or dismiss employees or contractors, determine salaries, approve holidays or perform other employment-law functions.<\/p>\n

Their authority was limited to organising the particular project.<\/p>\n

Subordination remains the key test<\/h2>\n

The Chief Labour Inspector emphasised that the legal name of the agreement is not decisive.<\/p>\n

What matters is how the relationship operates in practice.<\/p>\n

A core characteristic of employment is subordination: in particular, the employer’s ability to give direct and binding instructions concerning the ongoing performance of work, as well as to determine the employee’s working time and place of work.<\/p>\n

In the arrangements described in the application, the Inspectorate found that this type of subordination was absent.<\/p>\n

Does this mean that IT B2B arrangements are automatically safe?<\/h2>\n

No, because the interpretation applies to the specific facts described by the applicant. It is binding on the Labour Inspectorate only within that factual framework.<\/p>\n

The decision itself expressly states that PIP may reassess the relationship during an inspection if the actual cooperation differs from the circumstances described in the application.<\/p>\n

The practical conclusion is therefore not that \u201cIT contractors can always work on B2B contracts\u201d. The more useful lesson is that a genuine B2B relationship should involve real independence, contractual responsibility and commercial risk - not merely an agreement labelled as B2B.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Time records, a company laptop and a 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. availability window - none of these made the contractors employees. What actually decided the Chief Labour Inspector’s interpretation of 29 July 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ongoing-legal-support-for-businesses"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/magdalena-pulawska.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}