Poland's Labour Inspectorate Reform in 2026: Your B2B Contract Can Be Reclassified as Employment — What It Means for Foreigners

Since 8 July 2026, Poland's National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) can issue an administrative decision reclassifying B2B and civil-law contracts as employment relationships. In late August, news about a "new 30-question test" pushed the topic into the headlines. Here's what actually applies today, what is still only a draft, and — most importantly — what it means for a foreigner whose residence permit rests on self-employment or contract work.

Has a new PIP test actually been introduced?

No. The list of 30 questions is a draft, not a working instrument.

Chief Labour Inspector Janusz Krasoń, who took office in early July 2026, submitted it to the Labour Protection Council (Rada Ochrony Pracy) for consultation. He is awaiting comments, has promised to consider each one, and the list may still change.

This is also the second attempt. An earlier version of 42 questions, prepared by the previous head of PIP, Marcin Stanecki, at the end of 2025, never became an official document — it died at the public consultation stage.

One more clarification lost in the retellings: the 30 questions don't replace the earlier list, they supplement five core questions. The structure is "5 core + 30 additional".

What actually applies from 8 July 2026?

This part is law, not a draft.

A regional labour inspector (okręgowy inspektor pracy) can issue an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship — including where a B2B or zlecenie contract has been signed. Previously only labour courts could do this.

Key procedural points:

• the decision is not immediate: it follows only after failure to comply with an order to remedy violations, so the principal gets a chance to fix things first;
• the inspector's decision can be appealed directly to the labour court;
• as a rule, the employment contract is dated from the PIP decision. Exception: if the contract is terminated by the principal during the inspection, the date is the day the inspection began;
• contributions already paid under the civil-law contract count toward those due under the employment contract;
• inspections may be conducted remotely, via online transmission for document review and hearing the parties;
• PIP, ZUS and KAS are forming a joint risk-assessment task force.

The act is subject to subsequent review by the Constitutional Tribunal, but this does not suspend either its entry into force or the operation of its provisions.

Important: the new rules are not retroactive. Applying them to past periods was discussed while the bill was being drafted but did not make it into the adopted act.

How many cases have there been — the real first-month numbers

PIP published its results on 18 August 2026. The figures are sobering in both directions.

Complaints have tripled year on year. But not a single administrative decision has been issued yet — the system is operating through orders and voluntary correction rather than hard rulings.

No single industry dominates. Complaints concern both the private and public sectors, the smallest firms and very large companies, services, retail, manufacturing, medical facilities, nationwide restaurant chains, platform work and the security industry.

A caveat from Chief Labour Inspector Janusz Krasoń: a significant share of complaints concerns work periods that ended before 8 July, where the new instruments cannot be applied. Many complaints also have substantial formal defects.

How large is the underlying problem?

For scale — the estimates that explain why this topic is so loud:

Against that backdrop, 121 orders is statistically negligible. But the direction is set, and the window for voluntary correction is time-limited.

What exactly does the inspector look at?

We don't reproduce the full 30-question table — it belongs to the outlet that published the draft. But two openly available things are enough for a self-check.

The five core questions. It's an employment relationship (rather than B2B) when all five conditions are met at once:

1. the person previously performed the same or similar work under an employment relationship;
2. holds a defined position or function within the company's organisational structure;
3. has a defined scope of duties — whether oral or written;
4. has a superior: a coordinator, dispatcher, foreman, manager or director;
5. cannot refuse to carry out an instruction without reason and without consequences.

PIP's own official markers of an employment relationship. This is not a draft but the inspectorate's standing legal guidance, applied right now:

• the worker's subordination to the employer's management;
• the work is remunerated;
• the work is performed personally by the worker;
• activities repeat over defined periods of time;
• the employer bears the risk associated with running the business;
• the work is performed at a place and time set by the employer.

The extended list asks, among other things: whether the person previously worked at the same company under an employment contract doing broadly the same thing; how much freedom they have in choosing how to carry out a task; who organises and supervises the work; and whether they receive instructions the way a staff employee does.

Lawyers are reserved about the format. Dr Marcin Wojewódka (Wojewódka i Wspólnicy) notes the list's strength: it shifts attention from paper to practice — you can have an impeccably drafted B2B contract, but if the contractor behaves like an employee, the contract's title won't solve the problem. The weakness is that questions of very different weight sit side by side, and a yes/no format creates a false sense of precision when the honest answer is often "partly" or "mostly".

What is the 12-month amnesty and when does it end?

This is the most practical part of the reform, and it gets lost behind the discussion of the test.

The legislator provided a 12-month adjustment period. A principal who entered into a civil-law contract before the act came into force and voluntarily brings the situation into compliance by concluding an employment contract within 12 months is not liable for the offence under the Labour Code.

The clock runs from 8 July 2026 — so the window closes around 8 July 2027.

That explains the 201 voluntary conversions in the first month: some firms aren't waiting for inspectors, they're checking themselves.

How do you get protection from penalties?

The only instrument offering real protection is an individual interpretation from the Chief Labour Inspector.

How it works:

• fee — 40 PLN;
• deadline — without undue delay, no later than 30 days from receipt of a complete application;
• issued as a decision, appealable to the regional court;
• binding on PIP bodies; it can be changed or revoked only if the circumstances of the case change;
• it does not preclude an inspection if the facts established during it differ from those described in the application;
• following the interpretation gives protection from administrative and financial sanctions within its scope.

What the application must contain:

1. details identifying the applicant;
2. a description of the factual situation or future event;
3. the provisions to be interpreted;
4. the applicant's position on the matter;
5. proof of the 40 PLN fee;
6. documents or other evidence of the described circumstances, if available.

Now the sobering statistic. Since 8 July the Chief Labour Inspector has issued 7 interpretations. In only 2 cases did he agree with the applicant's position. In 5 cases he rejected it, finding that an employment relationship was the correct classification.

The sample is small, but the direction is unambiguous: a business owner's confidence in their arrangement and PIP's assessment frequently diverge. One known favourable example is an interpretation for an IT company, where the inspectorate accepted that specialists working on B2B do not meet the markers of employment and the contracts need not be changed.

What does reclassification mean for a foreigner with a residence permit?

Here we get to what Polish sources don't cover, because they write for Polish businesses. For a foreigner, the risk is of a different order.

A caveat first: there is no provision in law directly linking these two situations. The Labour Inspectorate Act and the Foreigners Act don't cross-reference each other. What follows is an analysis of risk logic, not a citation of a rule — which is exactly why your own situation needs individual review rather than reasoning by analogy.

The logic runs like this:

1. A foreigner obtained a residence permit on the basis of their own business activity — a distinct ground with its own income conditions (see the article on sole proprietorship, and the article on choosing a structure).
2. In practice, they work for a single client, on that client's schedule, using that client's equipment, following instructions — which by the markers is an employment relationship.
3. PIP reclassifies the contract as employment.
4. The basis for the residence permit is thrown into question. The business activity as declared at the time of application no longer exists — there is employment instead, which is a different ground with different requirements (see the article on the work-based permit).

The same risk applies to those working through a business incubator or umbrella company: those relationships are structured as umowa zlecenie or o dzieło and fall within the same scope of review (see the article on that model).

What this means in practice: if your residence permit rests on a business ground while the actual pattern of your work looks like employment, assess it before an inspection, not after. You have a window until July 2027 during which correction counts as voluntary.

When might reclassification actually work in your favour?

A counterintuitive turn that rarely gets discussed: for some foreigners, being recognised as an employee is an improvement rather than a threat.

An employment contract provides a simpler, clearer basis for a work-based residence permit, plus paid leave, sick pay, pension contributions and protection against dismissal. If you effectively work as an employee and B2B was the employer's condition rather than your choice, moving to employment may strengthen both your legal status and your social entitlements.

Whether this is a threat or an opportunity depends on the ground your permit was issued on and what your voivode's decision actually says. This is a case where there is no universal answer.

Frequently asked questions

Am I required to take the PIP test? No. The list is a self-check tool, not a mandatory procedure, and in its current form it is a draft under consultation. You can't bring its results to court as evidence.

If I answer "no" to most questions, does that make my B2B lawful? Not necessarily. Lawyers specifically warn that the list is not a calculator: the questions carry different weight, and one "yes" about ongoing binding instructions matters more than several "yes" answers about organisational details such as company-issued equipment.

Can I be inspected for periods before 8 July 2026? The new reclassification instruments do not apply to earlier periods — the act is not retroactive. That is precisely why a significant share of the complaints received cannot be processed under the new rules.

What if an inspector issues a decision and I disagree with it? A regional inspector's decision is appealed directly to the labour court. Also, the decision isn't immediate: an order to remedy violations comes first, and only non-compliance opens the way to an administrative decision.

Should a foreigner request an individual interpretation? It protects against sanctions in the field of labour law but does not resolve the residence permit question — that falls to the voivode, not the labour inspectorate. If your legal stay is at stake, both sides need to be assessed together.