When can a mandate contract or B2B arrangement be treated as employment relationship in Poland? First State Labour Inspection (PIP) interpretations

The first individual interpretations issued by the State Labour Inspection (PIP) through the Chief Labour Inspector (GIP) show that, when assessing mandate contracts and B2B arrangements in Poland, the actual organisation of the working relationship is crucial — not the name given to the contract. GIP considers factors including subordination, how the time and place of work are determined, the contractor’s independence, the possibility of substitution and the extent of business risk borne by the contractor.

The mere ability to refuse an assignment is not always sufficient for the relationship to be regarded as civil-law in nature. What happens after the assignment has been accepted is equally important. At the same time, the first interpretations confirm that mandate contracts and B2B arrangements can be legitimate forms of cooperation if the contractor retains genuine independence. PIP is gradually publishing further interpretations showing how these criteria are assessed in specific working models.

PIP individual interpretations are a new mechanism under which an entity subject to inspection by the State Labour Inspection may ask the Chief Labour Inspector to assess whether an existing or planned cooperation model meets the criteria for an employment relationship set out in Article 22 § 1 of the Polish Labour Code. The first decisions are particularly relevant to companies using mandate contracts and B2B arrangements because they also affect the organisation of HR processes and HR and payroll services in Poland. They show how PIP assesses the actual conditions of cooperation and which elements may indicate that the relationship is employment-based.

---

What do the first PIP interpretations show?

PIP is gradually publishing further individual interpretations in its official database. They concern different sectors and cooperation models — from temporary work and IT services to transport, warehousing, hospitality and services provided in salons.

They do not create a simple test that automatically determines whether a particular type of contract is appropriate or inappropriate. They do, however, show how GIP weighs the individual elements of a specific relationship between a business and a contractor.

Cooperation model described in the application	Direction of GIP assessment	Key takeaway for the business
Short assignments performed at clients’ premises	Indicators of an employment relationship	A short assignment does not exclude an employment relationship if the other party determines where, when and how the work is performed.
Sales, business development and marketing	Civil-law relationship	Independent choice of working time and place, no ongoing instructions and the possibility of substitution support classification as a mandate contract.
IT specialists and project managers working on B2B contracts	B2B relationship	Project standards or time recording do not in themselves indicate an employment relationship if the contractor retains organisational independence.
Driver transporting children with disabilities on a fixed route	Indicators of an employment relationship	Personal and continuous performance of work at specified times, using a vehicle provided by the organisation, combined with organisational subordination and no business risk, supported classification as an employment relationship.
Students performing tasks in shops or production	Indicators of an employment relationship	Student status and the ability to declare availability do not in themselves determine that a mandate contract is appropriate.
Drivers independently declaring their availability	Civil-law relationship	No obligation to accept assignments and the possibility of substitution may support classification as a mandate contract.
Planned cooperation with B2B contractors	B2B relationship	Independent organisation of work, the ability to refuse assignments and the assumption of business risk support a B2B relationship.
Warehouse work	Indicators of an employment relationship	Freedom before accepting an assignment is not sufficient if the work is subsequently performed within the organisational structure of the business.
Work in hospitality	Indicators of an employment relationship	A work schedule, specified workplace, supervision and organisation provided by the business may indicate an employment relationship.
Services performed as part of a salon’s operations	Indicators of an employment relationship	Merely declaring availability does not exclude an employment relationship if the contractor personally performs work within the organised business of the other party.

The table is based on the first interpretations published by the Chief Labour Inspector in the official PIP database.

---

What determines whether a mandate contract is actually an employment contract in Poland?

The actual conditions of the cooperation determine its legal nature, not the title of the signed contract. Article 22 § 1 of the Polish Labour Code remains the key reference point. The first interpretations highlight several areas that businesses should analyse particularly carefully.

Can subordination exist without constant instructions from a manager?

Subordination remains one of the key elements of an employment relationship. It does not, however, require a manager to issue detailed instructions throughout the working day. Organisational subordination may also be relevant — for example, personally performing work at a specified place and time within a process organised by another entity.

For this reason, the fact that a specialist performs tasks independently and does not require constant supervision may not always be sufficient for the relationship to be regarded as civil-law in nature.

Does the ability to refuse an assignment determine whether the relationship is civil-law?

One of the more significant conclusions from the interpretations is the distinction between freedom before accepting an assignment and independence after it has been accepted.

A contractor may be able to declare their availability or refuse another assignment. This does not automatically determine that the relationship is civil-law in nature.

Businesses should additionally assess:

1. whether the contractor organises their own work after accepting an assignment;
2. who determines where and when the work is performed;
3. who decides how the assignment is carried out;
4. whether the contractor is subject to ongoing management by the business.

The ability to say “no” before an assignment begins does not eliminate subordination while the assignment is being performed.

---

Does the possibility of substitution matter to PIP?

Yes. A genuine ability to have another person perform the assignment may weigh against classification as an employment relationship.

An employment relationship assumes the personal performance of work. If the contractor can genuinely use a substitute or subcontractor, this may be one factor supporting a civil-law relationship. The key word, however, is genuinely. A contractual provision may carry limited weight if, in practice, the contractor is unable to use a substitute.

PIP identifies the ability to appoint a substitute as one of the elements that should be described in detail in an application for an individual interpretation.

---

Does using company tools automatically mean there is an employment relationship?

No. Using a company’s systems, recording time or complying with specified standards does not, on its own, determine the existence of an employment relationship.

This is particularly visible in interpretations concerning cooperation with specialists. A company may require compliance with security rules, time reporting for project billing purposes or the performance of services in accordance with specified standards.

The key question is whether such requirements are intended to control the result of the service or whether, in practice, they amount to ongoing control over how, where and when the work is performed.

---

Can similar roles involve different forms of cooperation?

The first interpretations clearly illustrate why a contract cannot be assessed solely on the basis of a job title or the type of tasks performed. Drivers provide one example. In one of the situations analysed, the way in which the transport services were organised indicated characteristics of an employment relationship. In another model, GIP accepted the position that the described cooperation under a mandate contract did not constitute an employment relationship. Relevant factors included the drivers independently declaring their availability, having no obligation to accept journeys outside the periods they had previously declared and a contractual right to have a third party perform the assignment.

The same profession therefore does not automatically require the same form of engagement. For PIP, the specific model used to organise the work is decisive.

---

Can a B2B contract be treated by PIP as an employment relationship?

Yes. The fact that a contractor operates their own business does not prevent the cooperation from being regarded as an employment relationship if the actual conditions correspond to employee status.

This does not mean that B2B cooperation is challenged as such. The first interpretations also include B2B models that received favourable assessments. Relevant factors included:

• the ability to refuse an assignment;
• the absence of ongoing management;
• freedom to organise the time and place where services are performed;
• the contractor’s responsibility for completing the assignment;
• the assumption of business risk;
• the ability to involve other people in providing the services.

There is no separate B2B test based, for example, solely on the number of clients served by the contractor. The assessment continues to be based on the criteria for an employment relationship set out in the Polish Labour Code.

---

Can PIP reclassify a mandate contract as an employment contract?

PIP has powers that may lead to confirmation of the existence of an employment relationship where a civil-law contract is performed under conditions corresponding to employee employment. An individual interpretation, however, is a separate mechanism. An interpretation is issued by the Chief Labour Inspector at the request of an eligible entity. Its purpose is to help determine whether the cooperation model described in the application meets the criteria for an employment relationship.

The procedure followed during a PIP inspection is different. Therefore, obtaining an individual interpretation should not be equated with an inspection or with a decision confirming the existence of an employment relationship.

---

How can a company obtain an individual PIP interpretation?

An application may be submitted by an entity subject to inspection by the State Labour Inspection. The interpretation may concern both an existing cooperation model and an arrangement that the company is only planning to introduce. The application should describe not only the contractual provisions but, above all, how the work is actually performed. Particular attention should be paid to:

• the rules governing the contractor’s subordination;
• how the work is organised;
• how the time and place of performance are determined;
• how the results are accounted for;
• whether assignments can be refused;
• whether a substitute may be appointed;
• the responsibility and risk borne by the contractor.

Current information on the procedure and further published interpretations can be checked directly on the State Labour Inspection website.

---

Does a favourable PIP interpretation protect a company from an inspection?

A favourable individual interpretation does not prevent PIP from carrying out an inspection, but it is binding on the State Labour Inspection authorities in relation to the factual circumstances described in the application. If an inspection shows that the actual conditions of cooperation differ from those presented in the application, PIP may assess the true nature of the legal relationship independently of the interpretation previously issued.

If a company describes a model in which the contractor independently organises their working time, but in practice a manager sets a daily schedule and continuously gives instructions, there is a discrepancy between the circumstances covered by the interpretation and the actual situation. An application should therefore not describe only how the cooperation is intended to operate under the contract, but primarily how it actually functions within the organisation.

---

What should a business review before a PIP inspection?

The first interpretations show that reviewing the contract template alone may not be sufficient.

A business should examine in particular:

• who determines where and when tasks are performed;
• who decides how those tasks are carried out;
• whether the contractor receives ongoing instructions;
• whether the contractor may refuse another assignment;
• whether the contractor remains independent after accepting it;
• whether the possibility of substitution is genuine;
• who bears the business risk;
• whether the contractor is organisationally treated in the same way as employees.

For companies working with larger numbers of mandate contractors or self-employed contractors, such a review should also be linked to an assessment of processes covered by HR and payroll services in Poland.

This is particularly important for international organisations managing employment in Poland. A contract template may be prepared centrally, while the actual way in which the contractor is managed depends on the local manager in Poland. A properly drafted contract does not eliminate the risk if the company’s day-to-day practices operate differently.

---

What is the main lesson from the first PIP interpretations for businesses?

The first GIP decisions do not mean that mandate contracts or B2B arrangements are no longer permitted forms of cooperation. They do, however, show very clearly that formal independence written into a contract must also exist in practice.

A business should therefore examine not only whether the contractor can refuse another assignment. What happens afterwards is equally relevant: who determines the schedule, workplace and method of performing the tasks, whether substitution is possible and who bears the risk associated with delivering the services.

Companies using civil-law or B2B contracts should compare the provisions of their agreements with their actual operational and HR processes. If the way the cooperation is organised raises doubts, it is worth reviewing the model before a potential PIP inspection or before applying for an individual interpretation.

getsix® can support businesses in organising HR and payroll processes and documentation relating to different forms of cooperation in Poland. This can help identify areas where day-to-day operational practice may differ from the model established in the contracts. Contact us.

---

***