PIP reform 2026

On March 13, 2026, an amendment to the Act on the National Labor Inspectorate reached the President’s desk. The final version of the amendment retained some of the most prominent provisions, including the ability of labor inspectors to issue administrative decisions converting civil law contracts into employment contracts.

What are the key changes?

New competences of the National Labor Inspectorate: transformation of contracts into an employment relationship by administrative decision.

The draft amendment provides for granting the National Labor Inspectorate the power to transform civil law contracts into employment contracts, which is undoubtedly the most controversial change, widely discussed from the very beginning of the announcement of changes in the National Labor Inspectorate.

In practice, this marks a departure from the previous model, which required referring the matter to a labor court to resolve the matter. The new solution significantly accelerates the process of verifying employment status and strengthens the powers of supervisory bodies.

At the same time, the legislator has provided for a “remedial” procedure. Before issuing a decision, the inspector should identify any irregularities and facilitate their removal. Only if the entrepreneur fails to respond does formal proceedings begin, culminating in the issuance of a decision or referral to court.

From the perspective of businesses, the ability to challenge the immediate enforceability of a decision is also crucial. Filing an appeal with the labor court, along with a motion to set it aside, will be subject to urgent review, which in practice creates a real opportunity to suspend the enforceability of the inspector’s decision.

This solution will significantly reduce the risk of immediate financial burdens that may prove unjustified at the appeal stage.

It is also worth noting that the will of the parties will be taken into account during the proceedings, provided that it is not contrary to the provisions of labour law or is not intended to circumvent them.

According to the assumptions, the entrepreneur will retain the ability to adjust the cooperation model at the inspection stage, eliminating elements specific to the employment relationship. However, it should be emphasized that the assessment of whether the actions taken constitute a genuine change to the cooperation model or merely an attempt to circumvent the regulations will be of an evaluative nature and, in practice, may raise significant interpretational doubts.

When does an employment relationship arise according to the PIP decision?

The bill contains a significant limitation for both employers and employees. However, unlike the previous version of the bill, the PIP decision cannot establish an employment relationship retroactively; rather, it generally only establishes an employment relationship from the date the decision is issued.

In practice, this means that even if the B2B collaboration lasted several years, the National Labor Inspectorate’s decision will have future effects. An exception is provided for situations where, during the inspection, the entrepreneur terminates the civil law contract or actually ends the collaboration. In such a case, the date of conclusion of the employment contract is considered the date the National Labor Inspectorate’s inspection begins.

This solution significantly limits the potential financial consequences of the inspector’s decisions, in particular in the area of ​​social security contributions and employee claims.

When will it be possible to establish an employment relationship retroactively?

However, the bill provides a mechanism to enable the determination of an employment relationship for an earlier period. Specifically, if it is necessary to establish the existence of an employment relationship for a period earlier than the one covered by the decision, the district labor inspector may file a claim with the labor court.

In practice, this means that:

• PIP’s decision will mainly affect the future,
• full determination of employment history can only be made in court proceedings.

This solution constitutes a kind of compromise between the demand for increasing the effectiveness of control and maintaining the role of labour courts as bodies resolving employment disputes.

In practice, it can be expected that if an inspection carried out at an entrepreneur’s premises reveals significant infringements potentially lasting for years, the case will be referred to the courts.

The bill does not explicitly specify the retroactive period for which a court may establish the existence of an employment relationship. However, in practice, the three-year statute of limitations for employee claims is significant, limiting the ability to pursue financial benefits for earlier periods (Article 291 § 1 of the Labor Code).

Does the amnesty apply to any liability for tax and contribution purposes?

The bill also provides a solution that could be described as a quasi-amnesty. It’s worth emphasizing, however, that the amnesty provided for in the bill only applies to selected sanctions under the Labor Code, including: sanctions for concluding a civil law contract instead of an employment contract and sanctions for failing to provide written confirmation of the contract (Article 281 of the Labor Code).

The draft, however, does not include transitional provisions regarding tax and contribution settlements. This means that even if an entrepreneur takes advantage of this labor law amnesty, there is still a risk of proceedings being initiated by tax authorities or the Social Insurance Institution.

The justification for the project also does not indicate that the planned amnesty would include tax or contribution settlements.

In this context, the new regulations can be seen as an incentive to regulate relations with colleagues before the supervisory authorities start to fully exercise the new powers provided for in the proposed regulations, rather than as an amnesty in the sense we commonly know it.

What else does the amendment regulate?

• The possibility of the labor court granting security at the appeal stage has been provided for. As a result, for the duration of the dispute, the legal relationship may be treated as an employment contract with respect to the provisions on termination of employment.
• Sanctions for offenses against workers’ rights have been tightened, and inspections can also be carried out remotely.
• Data exchange between ZUS, PIP and KAS has been expanded, which will allow for more effective selection of entities for inspection.
• The jurisdiction of district courts (labor courts) has been clarified and it has been confirmed that in such cases, claims for damages related to unlawful termination or dismissal may also be pursued. If the court overturns the decision, the employer will be entitled to compensation, without the need to pursue it in separate proceedings.
• The possibility of obtaining an individual interpretation from the Chief Labour Inspector has been introduced, which, in the event of a positive assessment, provides protection against sanctions.

The new regulations clearly shift the focus from lengthy court disputes to swift administrative decisions, accompanied by increasingly broader cooperation between the National Labor Inspectorate (PIP), Social Insurance Institution (ZUS), and the National Revenue Administration (KAS). In practice, this means that the risk of challenging the cooperation model is no longer solely an “employee” risk, but is now having a direct tax and contribution impact.

Therefore, we recommend:

• review of B2B and civil law contracts in terms of the characteristics of the employment relationship,
• identifying risk areas and preparing possible changes,
• analysis of potential contribution and tax consequences before the audit.

In this respect, we can support you by:

• audit of cooperation models and identification of risks,
• support in designing a safe cooperation model (to reduce the risk of requalification).

In the current reality, preventive action is crucial – appropriate preparation now can significantly reduce the risk of disputes and potential financial burdens in the future.