The order to remedy breaches — the stage at which nothing is settled yet

What the order covers

Art. 11 ust. 2 of the PIP Act: the competent authorities of the National Labour Inspectorate, after allowing the parties to the legal relationship to state their position, may issue an order to remedy breaches concerning the operation of a civil-law contract or the failure to conclude an employment contract — where the legal relationship between the parties is dominated by the features of an employment relationship set out in art. 22 § 1 of the Labour Code.

The test is the predominance of those features: performing work of a specified type for the employer and under the employer's direction, at a place and time designated by the employer, for remuneration. The name given to the contract is not decisive — a settled rule that the amendment did not change.

The provision expressly requires that the parties be allowed to state their position before the order is issued. This is a genuine moment to present evidence: how the work is organised, who sets the hours, how much freedom the contractor has, and whether the contractor bears business risk.

Form and deadline

Art. 34 ust. 1c of the PIP Act: the order referred to in art. 11 ust. 2 is issued in writing, recorded in paper or electronic form. When issuing the order, the labour inspector sets the compliance deadline so that compliance can be assessed — in the light of all the circumstances of the case — while the inspection is still under way.

This distinguishes it from orders under art. 11 ust. 1 pkt 8, which are issued orally (art. 34 ust. 1b). An order concerning a civil-law contract takes written form and has its own deadline. Because compliance is to be assessed during the inspection, the decision on how to put the employment arrangement in order has to be taken quickly.

Why this is the decisive stage

Art. 11 ust. 1 pkt 7a of the PIP Act makes a decision confirming the existence of an employment relationship conditional on failure to comply with the order referred to in ust. 2 pkt 2. If the order is complied with, the authority has no ground to issue a decision on that basis.

Non-compliance opens the way further: the regional labour inspector (okręgowy inspektor pracy) notifies the parties that proceedings have been opened (art. 33a ust. 1) and may either issue a decision or bring a court action to establish the existence or content of the employment relationship (art. 33a ust. 3).

Complying with the order usually means concluding an employment contract matching the actual conditions, or removing those elements of the cooperation that create the predominance of employment features. Rewriting the wording of the contract while the practice stays the same does not close the matter — the test in art. 22 § 1 of the Labour Code refers to the conditions in which the work is actually performed.

The perspective of an employer hiring foreigners

Under art. 33 ust. 2 pkt 3 of the Act of 20 March 2025 on the conditions for permitting work to be entrusted to foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Poland (Dz.U. 2025 poz. 621), neither an amendment nor a new work permit is required where the Polish entity entrusting the work and the foreigner have concluded an employment contract instead of a civil-law contract, or where the existence of an employment relationship has been confirmed in a decision under art. 11 ust. 1 pkt 7a of the PIP Act.

An analogous rule applies to declarations: art. 69 pkt 5 of that Act provides that in such a case entering a new declaration on entrusting work in the register is not required. Complying with the inspector's order therefore does not collide with the risk of being accused of illegally entrusting work merely because the basis of employment has changed. The remaining conditions set out in the permit or the declaration must still be observed.