New Anti-Mobbing Regulations 2026: How Workplace Culture Will Impact Your Recruitment Process

New Anti-Mobbing Regulations 2026 – What Will Change in the Labor Code?

Bartek: There has been a lot of talk recently about changes in labor law regulations aimed at making it easier for employees to win court cases involving discrimination or mobbing. Should the new regulations actually be interpreted this way? When will they come into force?

Dariusz: Some of the regulations designed to prevent undesirable workplace behavior are already over 20 years old. In the daily operations of most employers, the duty to ensure equal treatment and prevent discrimination and mobbing is obvious. However, the need to adapt these regulations -both to the modern reality and to the established case law of labor courts -has been signaled for a long time. The Polish government decided to respond to these voices and prepared a draft amendment to the Labor Code in this area. The draft has already been formally submitted to parliament. While we are still talking about proposed legislation, in my estimation, we should expect the new regulations to be passed before the end of 2026.

The scope of the proposed changes covers two main areas: countering mobbing practices and combating workplace discrimination.

Above all, the draft introduces a new definition of mobbing. This is indeed intended to make it easier to pursue anti-mobbing claims, which until now have often ended in dismissal on formal grounds due to the procedural difficulties of proving the statutory criteria for mobbing.

The proposed changes regarding the prevention of discrimination are partly corrective in nature – for instance, regarding compensation and redress—but they also supplement the definition of discrimination and alter the rules regarding the burden of proof when employees pursue claims.

Bartek: That sounds like quite a challenge for companies. Does this mean the new regulations are aimed solely at employers?

Dariusz: Undoubtedly, the nature of the changes justifies the claim that the new rules aim to make it easier for employees who are victims of undesirable workplace behavior to pursue claims. However, it is worth emphasizing that the new regulations significantly streamline and clarify the employer’s position, which should be viewed as a welcome outcome. We must remember that undesirable workplace phenomena have negative consequences both for the individual employee-victim and for the employer as an organization, which in such situations usually faces decreased productivity and increased absenteeism.

Burden of Proof on the Company: How to Avoid Discrimination Accusations?

Bartek: How will the employer’s position in court change in disputes over breaches of the principle of equal treatment in employment?

Dariusz: The draft explicitly states that once an employee prima facie establishes (renders plausible) a breach of the principle of equal treatment in employment, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to demonstrate (prove) that no such breach occurred. However, this is not a brand-new concept; it has functioned in court practice for a long time. This change is primarily clarifying in nature. In terms of litigation practice, the position of the parties in a dispute over equal treatment should not change significantly.

An employee seeking court protection against unequal treatment in employment will be protected against the termination of their employment relationship, meaning retaliatory actions are explicitly forbidden. However, it is worth noting that this broad protection for an employee pursuing their rights in court has clear limits. If an employee knew that no violation had occurred, yet still took action to claim otherwise, such protection will not apply. This solution should limit the risk of abusing available legal instruments in situations where an employee acts in bad faith.

New Definition of Mobbing 2026 – Why Will Proving Harassment Be Easier?

Bartek: Does the new definition of mobbing hold practical significance for employers?

Dariusz: Without a doubt, yes. Under the current legal framework, an employee wishing to show they were a victim of mobbing had to prove that multiple criteria were met cumulatively. The absence of even one of them resulted in a denial of legal protection. In particular, it was necessary to prove that the mobbing led to a specific outcome – such as a health disorder, lowered self-esteem, or professional isolation. Proving these circumstances involved significant difficulties, as it often required presenting medical documentation or obtaining expert opinions. As a result, despite objectively unacceptable behavior taking place, successfully pursuing claims was highly difficult for employees and frequently failed. An additional barrier was the need to prove intent on the part of the perpetrator. In practice, it is extremely difficult to establish whether a given behavior was aimed at humiliating an employee or whether it stemmed from an established management style or other organizational factors.

These circumstances show how significant the hurdles were to successfully proving workplace mobbing. In this context, the proposed change, based on the criterion of persistent harassment, will undoubtedly make it easier for victims of mobbing to pursue their claims.

Penalties for Mobbing in 2026: Is 6 Times the Salary Just the Beginning?

Bartek: Does this mean that an employer who has paid damages or redress for mobbing committed by another employee will be able to seek financial recovery from the perpetrator?

Dariusz: If mobbing by another employee did indeed take place, an employer who has paid damages or redress to the aggrieved employee will be entitled to pursue so-called recourse claims against the perpetrator to recover the loss incurred. Depending on the perpetrator’s basis of employment, the employer will be able to pursue claims based either on the provisions of the Labor Code (in the case of an employment relationship) or the Civil Code (in the case of cooperation based on civil law contracts, e.g., a mandate contract). The drafted regulations refer explicitly to the first of these scenarios. Here, too, the legislator clearly aims to balance the interests of the parties. On one hand, it strengthens protection for the employee-victim, who can count on less hesitation from the employer in paying out due benefits. On the other hand, it protects the employer’s interests by allowing them to demand reimbursement of the paid amounts from the perpetrator.

This has a significant impact on the employer’s financial situation, particularly in the context of the sanctions provided for in the draft legislation. An employee who has suffered mobbing will be able to seek not only damages but also non-material redress, the amount of which has been set at no less than six times the minimum wage. Therefore, while the employer remains directly liable to pay these amounts to the employee-victim, the proposed regulations grant them the option to transfer the economic burden to the perpetrator of the violation.

Bartek: What if a given behavior does not meet the criteria of persistence? Can an employee still count on protection in such a scenario?

Dariusz: The drafters have provided a solution whereby, in the absence of the criteria for mobbing, the labor court should ex officio (on its own initiative) examine whether the employee’s personal rights (dobra osobiste) have been violated. This would mean that even if the behavior does not meet the persistence threshold, the employee is not stripped of legal protection. However, it must be emphasized that the draft is still at the parliamentary stage, and this proposed solution raises significant procedural doubts. In particular, it is pointed out that shaping the court’s powers this way could constitute a departure from the adversarial principle of civil proceedings, given that the court – rather than the parties – would initiate the examination of a matter not covered by the claims in the lawsuit. Additionally, systemic doubts arise. Cases involving the violation of personal rights generally fall under the jurisdiction of regional courts (sądy okręgowe), whereas labor law cases are handled by district courts (sądy rejonowe). Adopting the proposed solution would therefore lead to a certain inconsistency in court jurisdiction.

Regardless of these reservations, the direction of the changes is clear – the legislator aims to ensure protection for the employee even in situations that do not meet the statutory definition of mobbing but still constitute a violation of their personal rights. On this point, however, I recommend patience to see what the final shape of the regulations will look like.

Active Prevention Instead of “Paper” Procedures

Bartek: In light of the new regulations, will employers have to adopt additional anti-mobbing policies?

Dariusz: The drafted regulations clearly emphasize that the obligation to counteract mobbing cannot be purely formal. Employers will be required to take active and continuous measures – meaning actions that genuinely aim to prevent the occurrence of undesirable behavior in the workplace. This marks a departure from the practice seen so far, where this duty was fulfilled primarily by introducing internal regulations that often carried limited practical weight. Merely adopting an anti-mobbing procedure will not suffice if it is not actually applied and enforced. The active nature of this duty should be understood as the necessity to take preventative actions, such as training employees and management, building awareness of unacceptable behavior, and creating safe reporting channels for irregularities. It must be stressed that these actions cannot be incidental; they must be part of a sustained and systemic approach to organizational management.

Bartek: So prevention is one thing, but what happens if a specific report comes in despite the training? Will simply having a procedure be enough?

Dariusz: In practice, how an employer responds to reports will become highly significant. A failure to carry out adequate explanatory investigations, or conducting them merely for appearances, could be judged as a failure to fulfill the duty to counteract mobbing – regardless of whether mobbing is ultimately found to have occurred. The proposed changes therefore elevate the standard of due diligence required of employers. The focal point shifts from the mere existence of regulations to their actual functioning. Importantly, the choice of methods and tools remains at the employer’s discretion. Consequently, it is not so much the content of the procedures, but rather their effectiveness and practical application that will be evaluated – both in terms of employer liability and potential court disputes.

How to Prepare Your Company for the Changes in 2026? Workplace Culture as a Recruitment Advantage in IT

My conversation with @Dariusz Zimnicki shows that the upcoming amendment is not just cosmetic legal fine-tuning, but a clear signal to the labor market. Undoubtedly, the new regulations aim to make it easier for employees to pursue claims, but at the same time, they streamline the situation for employers, which should be viewed as a positive outcome.

At @itMatch, we believe that a healthy work environment is the best magnet for IT talent. Companies that focus on active prevention and a culture of mutual respect right now will not only meet the new legal requirements but, above all, build a competitive advantage in recruitment processes. Professionals are increasingly choosing organizations that look after their team’s well-being in reality, not just “on paper.”