Until July this year, a dispute over whether a contractor on a B2B contract (umowa B2B) is really an employee ended in one place: in court. The labour inspectorate could at most file a lawsuit. Then you waited years for a judgment.
From 8 July 2026, that has changed. The district labour inspector (okręgowy inspektor pracy) can now issue a decision on their own that an employment relationship exists between a company and a contractor 1Art. 11(1)(7a); Art. 20 of the amending act1Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2026 r. o zmianie ustawy o Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy oraz niektórych innych ustaw (Act of 11 March 2026 amending the National Labour Inspectorate Act and certain other acts), Dz.U. 2026 poz. 473 (opens in a new tab). Source text. Published on 7 April 2026; the main part applies from 8 July 2026 (Art. 20). Article numbers in the text in the form “Art. 34(2g)” refer to the National Labour Inspectorate Act (ustawa o Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy) as amended.. They do not have to go to court. Whoever disagrees with the decision goes to court.
At first glance this looks like a procedural change. In practice it changes who has to act. Before, the inspectorate had to convince the court. Now the company has to convince the court that the inspectorate is wrong.
So it is worth knowing exactly how this process works. Because most of the decisions that really change anything are made in it earlier than you think.
Two steps: an instruction, then a decision
The inspector cannot issue a decision out of the blue. The Act requires two steps 1Art. 11(1)(7a) and Art. 34.
Step one: an instruction. If, during an inspection, the inspector finds that a B2B contract or a mandate contract (umowa zlecenia) has the features of an employment contract (umowa o pracę, often called etat), they issue a written instruction (polecenie) to remedy the breach. The deadline must be set so that the inspector can assess whether it was met while the same inspection is still running 1Art. 34(1c).
This is the moment when the company still has a choice.
Step two: a decision. If the instruction is not carried out, the case goes to the district labour inspector. They notify the parties that proceedings have started, and can then issue a decision or file a lawsuit in court 1Art. 33a(1) and (3).
The decision is not vague. It names the parties, the type of employment contract, the date it was concluded, the type of work, the place, the working time and the pay 1Art. 34(2b). In other words, a ready-made employment contract, only written by an authority.
If the evidence does not allow something to be established, the Act says what to fill in: a contract for an indefinite period, the company's registered office as the place of work, full time and the minimum wage 1Art. 34(2e). These are not assumptions a company would choose for itself.
Why there is no move left after the decision
In short: after the decision, the company has no move left. That is a shortcut, so let us unpack it.
After the decision there is an appeal to the labour court 1Art. 34(5a). According to commentators, the deadline is one month from service 22Infor.pl, „PIP może już zmieniać decyzją umowy cywilnoprawne w umowy o pracę” (“PIP can now convert civil-law contracts into employment contracts by decision”) (opens in a new tab). Overview of the procedure, the appeal deadline and the amnesty (abolicja).33CGO Legal, „Nowe uprawnienia PIP. Zmiana B2B na umowę o pracę” (“New PIP powers: changing B2B into an employment contract”) (opens in a new tab). Law firm commentary: procedure, preclusion of evidence, ZUS, data sharing.. It is a real route, but it is already a dispute, not a business decision. It follows the rules of civil procedure, with limits on bringing new evidence 3.
More important is what can no longer be done once the inspection has started.
Many companies' first reflex is to end the contract with the contractor before the case develops. The Act anticipated this. If, between the start of the inspection and the decision becoming final, the company terminates the contract or gives notice, lets it expire or stops accepting the person's work, the employment contract is deemed concluded on the date the inspection started. On top of that, the person is protected against dismissal like an employee 1Art. 34(2g) and (2h).
So parting ways with a contractor during an inspection does not close the case. It moves the start date of employment back.
In addition, the decision itself cannot be a reason to dismiss the employee 1Art. 34(2l). Breaching this ban is a separate petty offence (wykroczenie) 1Art. 281 § 1(1b) Labour Code.
Hence the shortcut. The move is before the inspection, or at worst between the instruction and the decision. After the decision, there are only costs and court.
What exactly the decision changes
The decision takes effect from the day it is issued 1Art. 34(2f). It does not go back in time.
That sounds reassuring, but it does not close the past. It only works for the future, and the past is settled by other routes:
- If an employment relationship needs to be established for an earlier period, the district inspector files a lawsuit in court 1Art. 33a(6).
- The Social Insurance Institution (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, ZUS) has its own proceedings and can claim contributions for up to five years back 23.
- The inspector merely starting proceedings interrupts the limitation period for employee claims 1Art. 33a(8).
From the day it is issued, the decision also changes everything at once. The effects cover labour law, tax, social and health insurance, and contributions to the funds 1Art. 34(2j). The contractor stops being a business, and the company becomes the remitter of tax and contributions (płatnik).
Enforceability has its own rules too. The decision becomes enforceable when the deadline for an appeal passes, when a judgment becomes final, or when it has been made immediately enforceable 1Art. 34(2k). Immediate enforceability can only be ordered for people with special protection against dismissal 1Art. 33a(5). So in a typical case, an appeal pushes enforcement of the decision back until the judgment. It pushes it back, but does not remove it.
Who this affects
More often than you might think. An inspection can cover any company for which someone performs work, including as a sole trader (jednoosobowa działalność gospodarcza). It also covers people who worked for the company in the year before the inspection started 1Art. 13.
The new rules also apply to contracts concluded before July if they were still running on 8 July 1Art. 14 of the amending act. So there is no safe pool of old contracts.
The inspectorate has also gained better tools to find such contracts. The National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP), ZUS and the National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa) share data, inspections can be carried out remotely, and companies are picked for inspection based on risk analysis 344KBIW, „PIP a umowy zlecenia, o dzieło i B2B: jak działać po 8 lipca 2026 r.” (“PIP and mandate, specific-work and B2B contracts: how to act after 8 July 2026”) (opens in a new tab). Law firm commentary: criteria, tax consequences, recommendations..
One important caveat: the Act did not change the definition of an employment relationship. Whether a B2B arrangement is employment is still assessed under Art. 22 § 1 of the Labour Code (Kodeks pracy) and case law 55Ustawa z dnia 26 czerwca 1974 r. Kodeks pracy (Labour Code of 26 June 1974), Art. 22 (opens in a new tab). Definition of an employment relationship, unchanged.34. What changed is who decides and how fast, not the criteria.
What you can do before it gets there
Most companies do not have a problem with their contracts. They have a problem with what the work looks like day to day. The contract says 'services', while the calendar, Slack and the rota say 'employee'.
So a sensible order looks like this:
- List every contract under which someone works for you. Not just B2B. Mandate contracts and contracts for specific work (umowy o dzieło) too.
- Check the practice, not just the paper. Who sets the hours? Who gives instructions? Can this person send someone else in their place? Do they carry any risk at all?
- Sort the contracts by risk. Long, exclusive, closely supervised relationships go first.
- Make a decision for each one. Move it to employment, change the way you work together so that it is genuinely B2B, or end the relationship, but before an inspection, not during one.
We cover exactly what the inspector looks for in the second article: Five signs of employment a labour inspector looks for in a B2B contract.
There is also a specific deadline for deciding to move people to employment. The Act gives 12 months, until July 2027, for voluntary conversion without liability for a petty offence. But it comes with conditions that are easy to miss. We cover them in the third article: A year to sort out B2B.
This article describes the law in general terms and is not legal advice on a specific case. The law is stated as at 12 October 2026.