Just a few weeks ago, it seemed that the IT industry could breathe a sigh of relief—media reports suggested that the Prime Minister had abandoned work on the controversial reform of PIP (National Labour Inspectorate) powers.
However, the situation has proven to be exceptionally dynamic. I am meeting once again with @Dariuszem Zimnickim z ZL Legal Advisors to update our findings, as February brought a sudden plot twist.
Despite earlier announcements, a new version of the draft legislation was published on February 16, and the Council of Ministers adopted it the very next day. This sends a clear signal that the reform aimed at granting inspectors the power to reclassify contracts is a top priority, with deadlines resulting from the National Recovery Plan (KPO) forcing an express pace of work.
In today’s conversation, I look into how the current draft differs from previous proposals, what the announced “amnesty” for companies actually means, and why the anticipated individual interpretations from the Chief Labour Inspector could turn out to be a double-edged sword.
Table of Contents
B2B changes 2026 – when will the new law come into force?
Bartek: At the beginning of the year, there was a highly publicized decision by the Prime Minister to abandon work on the reform aimed at granting labor inspectors the power to reclassify civil law contracts into employment contracts. Recent media reports indicate that work is now underway on a new draft. Is this true?
Dariusz: Yes, at the end of January, a new draft from the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy was published on government websites, representing a continuation of the work on the reform regarding new powers for the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP). Work on this draft is moving rapidly; the interministerial consultation stage has already concluded, and an updated version of the draft bill was published on February 16 and adopted by the Council of Ministers the very next day.
Bartek: Does this mean it is certain that the reform will be adopted? When are the new regulations scheduled to come into force?
Dariusz: Currently, the formal government stage of working on the draft bill is wrapping up. The draft will then be forwarded to parliament, and after obtaining approval from both chambers, it will be presented to the President for signature. Only after the President signs it can the law be officially published and enter into force. The current wording of the draft indicates a 3-month vacatio legis, meaning that the new regulations will come into effect 3 months after the law is published. Therefore, we cannot say with absolute certainty that the reform will enter into force, but both the adoption of the draft by the Council of Ministers and the pace of work so far indicate that there is political consensus to pass the new regulations quickly.
Undoubtedly, the deadlines for meeting the milestones related to funds from the National Recovery Plan (KPO) are playing a role. Adopting these new regulations is a condition for receiving a portion of those funds. However, it is possible – and in my view, highly likely – that changes will still be introduced to the draft during the parliamentary stage.
New PIP powers regarding B2B: Administrative decision instead of court
Bartek: How does the new draft differ from the previous one? Has the government actually backed away from the solution that grants labor inspectors the power to reclassify contracts via an administrative decision?
Dariusz: You could say that although the draft adopted by the Council of Ministers on February 17 introduces significant modifications, it is heavily based on the exact same assumptions that formed the foundation of the earlier draft. The most critical aspect of the new regulations is granting PIP inspectors the authority to establish the existence of an employment relationship via an administrative decision in situations where an employment contract should have been concluded. In this regard, the previously adopted concept of equipping PIP with the competence to independently establish an employment relationship has been maintained. Unfortunately, a large portion of employers’ doubts and concerns remain valid.
The key change compared to the previous draft is undoubtedly how the moment the employment relationship begins is determined. According to the current draft, if an inspector finds during an audit that work is being performed under conditions that necessitate an employment contract, they will either issue a decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship (as a rule, effective from the date the decision is issued) or they will file a lawsuit in court to establish the employment relationship if it is necessary to establish it for a period prior to the issuance of the decision.
The “Inspector’s Order” trap and new appeal procedures
Bartek: How exactly will this process look? Does the inspector simply walk in and change the contract?
Dariusz: The prerequisite for issuing an administrative decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship is the failure to comply with an inspector’s order to remedy violations regarding the functioning of a civil law contract or the failure to conclude an employment contract.
This part raises particular doubts among lawyers. The regulations do not specify what the exact content of such an inspector’s order can be. Furthermore, it remains unclear how a company is supposed to comply with, for instance, an order to conclude an employment contract if the B2B contractor is simply not interested in that form of employment.
While additional grounds for making a decision immediately enforceable have been removed, the drafted regulations explicitly refer to general principles that still allow an inspector to grant such immediate enforceability to a decision. The new draft also introduces procedural changes compared to earlier proposals; for example, an appeal against a decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship is now to be filed directly with the labor court.
Individual Interpretations by the Chief Labour Inspector – Is it worth applying?
Bartek: A point has also emerged regarding individual interpretations issued by the Chief Labour Inspector (GIP). Is this a safe way to validate a cooperation model?
Dariusz: The Chief Labour Inspector is to issue individual interpretations regarding the assessment of whether a presented legal relationship constitutes an employment relationship. However, issuing an interpretation will not be possible if an audit or proceeding is already underway against the applicant regarding that specific matter.
Personally, I have major doubts about how useful the mechanism of an individual interpretation will actually be for companies in these types of cases. Their nature is highly complex, primarily when it comes to the actual, day-to-day execution of the contract. Even at the stage of presenting the applicant’s position, it is necessary to outline a factual scenario upon which the interpretation will be based. The interpretation will not necessarily protect the applicant effectively during an audit if the inspector evaluates the actual facts differently.
The issuance of an interpretation does not prevent an inspector from making a different assessment during an audit if the factual circumstances established during that audit differ from what was previously described in the application. Naturally, the issuance of a negative interpretation for a company could also serve as a trigger for PIP to initiate an audit.
“Amnesty for the Brave” – 6 months to convert B2B into an employment contract
Bartek: Is it true that companies that “straighten out” their contracts on their own initiative can count on more lenient treatment?
Dariusz: The draft does indeed contain a provision that exempts employers from liability for violating the regulations on concluding employment contracts, provided that within six months from the entry into force of the regulations, they voluntarily bring the situation into legal compliance by concluding an employment contract.
While we should probably appreciate this attempt to mitigate liability, the tool seems fundamentally detached from reality.
It is worth emphasizing that outside of the segment of businesses that abuse their position by forcing the use of precarious “junk contracts” (śmieciówki), we have a massive group of organizations – including those in the IT industry – that utilize legally permissible forms of cooperation, such as entering into B2B contracts. The rational expectation of the business community is to receive clear guidance on how the auditing body (in this case, PIP) will apply the regulations granting them the power to establish an employment relationship, especially in situations where both parties (the company and the contractor) agreed in good faith on the terms of cooperation based on a B2B model.
How to conduct a self-assessment of reclassification risks
Bartek: What steps can companies employing B2B contractors take today? Surely it isn’t a case where the only remaining solution is to hire exclusively via employment contracts?
Dariusz: It is worth reminding ourselves at this point that the regulations introducing the PIP reform do not alter the core provisions of the Labour Code, which define the criteria of an employment relationship.
The definitive markers of employment are working under supervision, at a time and place designated by the employer. The first of these criteria is the most critical, as it is entirely unique to an employment relationship.
Consequently, giving a company a broad scope of authority to dictate exactly how B2B contractors must deliver their services will pose a substantial risk in the context of a potential reclassification.
It is also highly advisable to audit other aspects of the B2B relationship – particularly regarding perks or clauses that, in an identical or near-identical format, either originate in the Labour Code or are applied uniformly to both employees and contractors alike. Only if such an analysis leads to the conclusion that a B2B relationship contains multiple elements typical of employment – and where shifting the way contractors deliver services is impossible due to various reasons (often business-related or tied to the operational structure of the corporate group) – should the company consider changing the form of engagement.
Reclassifying a B2B contract into an employment contract (UoP) – Red Flags
Bartek: Are there specific indicators that companies can use to assess the risk of their B2B contractors being reclassified by labor inspectors? For instance, when evaluating whether the ability to give a B2B contractor guidelines regarding service delivery will be deemed employee supervision?
Dariusz: Unfortunately, it is difficult to point to established practice among labor inspectors in this area today. Existing case law regarding the interpretation of employment relationship criteria is quite extensive, though it does not necessarily address all the nuances that might arise when analyzing modern relationships – especially in a B2B setup.
Undoubtedly, this landscape will shift rapidly if the reform goes through. Both the appeals against labor inspectors’ reclassification decisions and the individual interpretations on the matter will be subject to judicial review. Until then, entrepreneurs and the lawyers supporting them must rely on existing practices and their own assessment of how well they meet the criteria outlined in the Labour Code.
The Chief Labour Inspector has repeatedly promised to publish a “compliance checklist,” but no such document has materialized so far. A working draft that leaked to the media a while ago was designed in such broad, general terms that it carried virtually no practical value.
Summary: How to Prepare Your Company for the Changes in 2026
My follow-up meeting with @Dariusz Zimnicki demonstrates that the issue of B2B reclassification has not vanished; it has simply evolved. The adoption of the draft bill by the Council of Ministers drastically shortens the window for companies to prepare for this new reality. Although the reform does not alter the actual definition of an employment relationship within the Labour Code, it equips regulatory bodies with tools that could radically transform current auditing practices.
Rather than letting emotions take over, it is essential to focus on the facts. The core risks – such as working under direct supervision or having fixed working hours and locations dictated to contractors – remain unchanged. If an audit of your contracts reveals multiple characteristics typical of regular employment, it is worth considering voluntary adjustments, taking advantage of the announced 6-month protective window.
We will continue to closely monitor the legislative process.
One thing is certain: companies that utilize this moment to bring structure and clarity to their cooperation models will be a step ahead of those that wait for their first PIP audit.
Planning your recruitment strategy for 2026? Regulatory changes could impact talent availability and preferred collaboration models. At @itMatch, we can help you navigate this process—from auditing your recruitment needs to finding specialists ready to cooperate in a model that is safe and compliant for your business.
