A PIP decision confirming an employment relationship — how it works from 2026

The condition that is easy to overlook

The decision cannot be issued immediately after the inspection findings. Art. 11 ust. 1 pkt 7a states expressly that the condition for issuing it is failure to comply with the order referred to in art. 11 ust. 2 pkt 2 of the PIP Act — an order to remedy breaches consisting in the failure to conclude an employment contract where the features of an employment relationship under art. 22 § 1 of the Labour Code predominate in the legal relationship between the parties. The provision also requires the application of art. 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, that is, ensuring the parties' active participation in the proceedings.

The order itself is not issued by surprise either: the body issues it after giving the parties to the legal relationship an opportunity to state their position. It is issued in writing recorded in paper or electronic form, and the inspector sets the compliance deadline so that compliance can be assessed while the inspection is still under way (art. 34 ust. 1c of the PIP Act).

The point at which the matter is decided is therefore the order, not the decision. Complying with the order within the set deadline closes the path to a decision under art. 11 ust. 1 pkt 7a.

Who conducts the proceedings and how

Under art. 33a ust. 1 of the PIP Act, the proceedings are initiated by the district labour inspector (okręgowy inspektor pracy) — on the basis of findings made during the inspection by a labour inspector — who notifies the parties. The parties are the entities and persons whom the decision may concern (ust. 2).

The body has a choice (ust. 3): it may issue a decision or bring an action for a declaration as to the existence or content of an employment relationship. An action is more appropriate in particular where it is necessary to cover a period earlier than the one that can be covered by a decision (ust. 6). If an action has been brought, no decision is issued within its scope (ust. 7).

Art. 33a ust. 4 requires that the will of the parties be taken into account — provided it is not contrary to law, in particular to labour law provisions or to the principles of social coexistence, and is not aimed at circumventing the law. Initiating the proceedings interrupts the limitation period for employee claims; after the interruption the period runs anew from the date the decision or the court ruling becomes final (ust. 8).

Immediate enforceability is an exception: art. 108 of the Code of Administrative Procedure applies in these proceedings only to persons covered by special protection against termination or dissolution of an employment contract (art. 33a ust. 5).

What the decision contains

Art. 34 ust. 2b of the PIP Act lists the elements of the ruling: identification of the parties to the employment contract, the type of employment contract, the date of its conclusion, the type of work, the place where work is performed, working time and the amount of remuneration for work. The decision also contains factual and legal reasoning (ust. 2c) and takes into account the facts existing during the inspection — from the day it began (ust. 2d).

If the evidence gathered by the district labour inspector does not allow a given element to be established, art. 34 ust. 2e requires it to be stated as follows: type of contract — a contract for an indefinite period; place where work is performed — the employer's registered office; working time — full time; amount of remuneration — the minimum remuneration for work.

As a rule, the date of conclusion of the employment contract is the date the decision is issued (art. 34 ust. 2f). The exception in ust. 2g: if, in the period between the day the inspection begins and the expiry of the time limit for lodging an appeal or the date the court ruling becomes final, the civil-law contract is — on the employer's initiative — dissolved or terminated, expires, or the actual performance of work ceases, the date of conclusion of the employment contract is the date the inspection began.

A separate safeguard follows from art. 34 ust. 2l: issuing the decision may not be a basis for any unfavourable treatment of the employee, and in particular may not constitute a reason justifying termination of the employment relationship or its dissolution without notice by the employer.

Effects, enforceability and appeal

Art. 34 ust. 2j: from the day it is issued, the decision produces the legal effects associated with confirmation of an employment relationship under labour law, tax law, social insurance and health insurance provisions, as well as obligatory contributions to the funds indicated in separate provisions.

Enforceability is set out separately (ust. 2k): the decision becomes enforceable on the day following the day on which the time limit for lodging an appeal expires, if neither party lodged an appeal — or on the date of a final court ruling, or on the date it is given immediate enforceability.

The inspected entity to which the decision is addressed is obliged to inform the competent body of the National Labour Inspectorate of its implementation, in writing recorded in paper or electronic form, once the decision becomes final (art. 35 ust. 1).

The appeal route does not lead to an administrative court: a party may appeal against the decision, and may also lodge a complaint against the order granting it immediate enforceability, under the rules set out in the Code of Civil Procedure (art. 34 ust. 5a of the PIP Act).