A logistics company headquartered in Mazowieckie region engaged our employment team in spring 2026 after a mid-level manager challenged his dismissal before the District Labour Court. The company had followed what it believed was a standard termination process. The notice letter cited performance reasons, the period ran its course, and the employee left the premises. Six weeks later, a claim landed on the company's desk alleging procedural defects, unlawful reason, and – most significantly – whistleblower protection status.

Employment termination in Poland is governed by the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KC) and, since September 2024, the Whistleblower Protection Act. A dismissal without a specific, genuine, and adequately documented reason is unlawful regardless of the notice period served. Employees may seek reinstatement or compensation of up to six months' salary through the district labour court.

This case study traces the background, the legal strategy we deployed, the procedural steps before the court, and the transferable lessons any employer operating in Poland should carry away. The matter illustrates how a lost-opportunity scenario – a dismissal that could have been properly structured from day one – becomes costly litigation that forfeits goodwill, management time, and money.

What was the background to the dispute?

The client – a mid-sized freight-forwarding firm – employed the manager under a permanent contract for four years. Performance concerns accumulated over two annual review cycles. Line management documented late deliveries and client complaints in internal emails, but no formal written warning was ever issued. When the decision to terminate was made, HR drafted a one-paragraph notice citing "unsatisfactory performance" without cross-referencing any specific incident or prior conversation.

The employee held a pozwolenie na pracę (work permit Poland) under an EU Blue Card arrangement, which added a layer of complexity. His protected status under the Whistleblower Protection Act arose from a report he had submitted to the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) three months before the dismissal. That report concerned alleged rest-period violations. The employer was unaware the report had been filed – or, more precisely, no one in HR had checked PIP records before signing the notice.

The district labour court in Warsaw accepted the claim within the statutory 21-day filing window. The employee sought reinstatement and back pay. Our team was retained five days after the claim was served.

How did we structure the defence strategy?

The first task was a rapid audit of the termination file. Three structural problems emerged immediately. First, no written warning existed in the personnel file – a prerequisite under Labour Code doctrine when performance is the stated reason. Second, the notice failed to specify concrete incidents, making the reason legally insufficient. Third, and most seriously, the employer had not checked whether the employee fell within a protected category before serving notice. Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, dismissal within 12 months of a protected disclosure creates a presumption of retaliatory termination.

We advised the client to resist reinstatement and instead seek a compensation settlement. Reinstatement carries an ongoing wage liability risk: if the court process extends beyond three months, back pay accrues at the full contractual rate. For this employee, monthly salary exceeded PLN 12,000 – making a protracted case economically damaging.

Our strategy rested on two pillars. First, we challenged the whistleblower protection claim on factual grounds: the PIP report related to a different business unit, not the one managed by the claimant. Second, we assembled retrospective performance documentation – emails, client escalation logs, and a signed meeting note from the line manager – to establish that the reason, though poorly articulated in the notice, was genuine.

We also flagged the EU Blue Card dimension to the court. The employee's right to remain in Poland was tied to his employment. Any reinstatement order would require the employer to maintain the position and the work permit. This practical constraint strengthened the case for a financial resolution.

To receive an expert assessment of your termination exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

What did the process reveal about Polish labour procedure?

The case moved through three hearings over approximately five months. At the first hearing, the court examined the notice document itself. The employment lawyer Warsaw practice standard – which the opposing counsel cited – is that a termination reason must be specific enough for the employee to understand precisely what conduct triggered the decision. "Unsatisfactory performance" alone fails that test. The court agreed it was insufficient on its face.

At the second hearing, we introduced the retrospective documentation. Polish labour courts accept such evidence, but they scrutinise its timing. The judge asked directly whether the documents had existed before the dismissal or were created afterwards. Our client confirmed authenticity; the line manager testified consistently. The court gave the documentation moderate weight.

The whistleblower issue was resolved at the third hearing. We demonstrated that the PIP report named a warehouse facility in Lower Silesia – a separate legal entity from the Warsaw logistics hub where the claimant worked. The presumption of retaliation was rebutted. That finding materially shifted the settlement calculus. Within two weeks of the third hearing, the parties reached an agreement: the employer paid compensation equivalent to three months' salary – approximately PLN 36,000 – and the claim was withdrawn.

For context on how similar compliance gaps arise when foreign entities operate Polish payrolls, see our analysis of employment law compliance for UAE companies in Poland and employment law compliance for Czech Republic companies in Poland.

What lessons should every Polish employer take from this matter?

Four transferable lessons emerge from this case. Each addresses a step that, had it been taken before the notice was signed, would have reduced litigation risk to near zero.

  • Issue written warnings before citing performance – at least one formal warning, with a response period of 14 days, should precede any performance-based dismissal.
  • Check protected-category status before signing – consult PIP records and internal whistleblower registers; the Whistleblower Protection Act's 12-month window is unforgiving.
  • Specify concrete incidents in the notice – name dates, client names (where permissible), and measurable shortfalls rather than generic descriptors.
  • Consider work permit implications early – an EU Blue Card or standard work permit Poland creates additional procedural obligations and affects the remedy calculus.

The micro-case outcome – PLN 36,000 paid in settlement plus legal costs – was significantly better than a reinstatement order would have been. But the entire exposure was avoidable. A pre-termination legal review, typically completed within 48 hours by an employment lawyer Warsaw practice, costs a fraction of three months' salary. Directors should note that personal liability for employment decisions can arise where procedural failures are systematic. For a broader view of director-level risk, see our note on D&O insurance coverage for Polish directors.

What to prepare before any termination in Poland:

  • Signed written warnings or performance-review records from the preceding 12 months
  • Confirmation that the employee is not on the internal whistleblower register
  • A PIP records check for any external disclosures
  • A draft notice with specific, dated, factual reasons
  • Confirmation of work permit or EU Blue Card status and expiry date

The specific facts of your company's situation may look straightforward on paper. In practice, a single missing document – a warning letter, a PIP check, a permit status confirmation – can transform a routine separation into litigation that forfeits months of management attention and precludes a clean commercial exit. That outcome is irreversible once the claim is filed.

To discuss how these procedures apply to your pending or planned termination, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does an employee have to challenge a dismissal in Poland?

A: Under the Labour Code, an employee must file a claim with the district labour court within 21 days of receiving the termination notice. Missing this deadline generally bars the claim, though courts may restore the deadline in exceptional circumstances. Employers should not assume a late claim is automatically inadmissible – always verify the postmark date on the notice delivery confirmation.

Q: Does the Whistleblower Protection Act apply to all employers in Poland?

A: Since September 2024, the Whistleblower Protection Act applies to all employers with 50 or more employees, as well as certain regulated-sector entities regardless of size. A common misconception is that protection only applies to disclosures made through the employer's internal channel. External reports to bodies such as the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) or the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) also trigger the 12-month anti-retaliation protection.

Q: What does a pre-termination legal review typically cost and how long does it take?

A: A focused pre-termination review – covering the notice draft, personnel file, protected-category checks, and work permit Poland status – typically takes 24 to 48 hours and costs materially less than one month of the employee's salary. For roles with salaries above PLN 10,000 per month, the review cost is rarely more than 15 to 20 percent of the potential litigation exposure.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to employment termination, workforce restructuring, and global mobility. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.