A mid-sized Italian manufacturing group operating through a Polish subsidiary faced a difficult situation in autumn 2025. After restructuring its Mazowieckie region plant, the company needed to terminate employment for twelve employees – including one foreign national holding a work permit in Poland and one individual who had recently reported internal irregularities. The HR director assumed the process would mirror Italian practice. It did not.

Employment termination in Poland is governed by the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KC) and requires strict compliance with notice periods, written justification, and consultation obligations. Errors in procedure – including failure to consult trade unions or omission of reasons in a termination letter – expose the employer to reinstatement claims or compensation awards of up to three months' salary per employee. Foreign nationals on work permits and employees who have reported wrongdoing under whistleblower legislation carry additional procedural protections that must be addressed separately.

This case study traces how the client's situation was resolved, what procedural traps were avoided, and what any employer operating in Poland should know before initiating termination proceedings.

What was the background and what made this matter complex?

The subsidiary employed approximately 80 staff. Twelve roles were being eliminated following a genuine organisational restructuring – not individual misconduct. On paper, collective redundancy rules under Polish labour law did not apply, because the threshold for collective dismissal requires terminating at least ten employees within 30 days in companies with fewer than 100 staff. The company fell just below that threshold. However, the individual termination rules still imposed significant obligations.

Three factors complicated the matter. First, one employee – a Ukrainian national – held an EU Blue Card issued in Poland. Termination of his employment triggered obligations toward the Urząd do Spraw Cudzoziemców (Office for Foreigners) and required verification of whether the card's minimum salary condition had been met throughout employment. Second, one employee had submitted an internal report three months earlier under Poland's whistleblower legislation, which transposes the EU Whistleblowing Directive. Polish law provides a two-year protection window. Terminating that employee without documented, pre-existing grounds carried a high reinstatement risk. Third, a works council operated at the plant, triggering mandatory consultation under the ustawa o radach pracowników (Act on Employee Councils).

The client had prepared draft termination letters in-house. None of them contained reasons. That alone would have been sufficient for a labour court to award compensation to each of the twelve employees.

How was the termination strategy structured?

Our team at KORDECKI & Partners was engaged six weeks before the planned termination date. The first step was a documentation audit. We reviewed employment contracts, internal regulations, the company's organisational chart, and any existing disciplinary or performance records. This audit identified which employees had special protection status under Polish law – including the whistleblower and the EU Blue Card holder – and which terminations required individual justification versus organisational grounds alone.

We advised the client to separate the terminations into two groups. Ten employees were terminated on pure organisational grounds – the elimination of their positions was documented through board resolutions and a revised organisational chart certified by the Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy (National Court Register, KRS). Each termination letter stated the specific position being eliminated and confirmed the restructuring rationale. Notice periods ranged from two weeks to three months, depending on length of service. All letters were issued in writing and signed by an authorised representative.

We secured a positive outcome for a manufacturing client in Mazowieckie (autumn 2025) by restructuring the termination sequence and ensuring each letter met the three-element test: written form, stated reason, and correct notice period. This avoided eight potential reinstatement claims.

The remaining two employees – the whistleblower and the EU Blue Card holder – required separate handling. For the whistleblower, we prepared a detailed chronological file showing that performance concerns predated the internal report by at least five months. This documentation is essential: Polish courts apply a causation test, and the employer bears the burden of proving the termination was unrelated to the protected disclosure. For the EU Blue Card holder, we coordinated with the Office for Foreigners to confirm notification obligations and verified that his salary throughout employment had met the minimum threshold required to maintain card validity.

What were the procedural outcomes and transferable lessons?

All twelve terminations were completed within a 45-day window. No reinstatement claims were filed. The whistleblower accepted a negotiated settlement – a mutual termination agreement with a three-month severance payment – which removed the reinstatement risk entirely. The EU Blue Card holder's termination was processed with a 30-day advance notification to the Office for Foreigners, as required under Polish immigration law. His card was subsequently cancelled without adverse consequences for the company.

The works council consultation was completed within the statutory 30-day period. The council raised no formal objections, partly because the restructuring rationale was well-documented and partly because the company offered outplacement support – a step that, while not legally required, materially reduced the risk of collective grievances.

For employers operating in Poland – particularly those with cross-border structures – the lessons from this matter are transferable. Consider the following checklist before initiating any termination process:

  • Identify all employees with special protection status: pregnant employees, trade union representatives, employees on parental leave, and whistleblowers under the EU Whistleblowing Directive transposition.
  • Confirm whether the dismissal threshold for collective redundancy applies – the 30-day window and headcount figures must be calculated carefully.
  • Prepare written termination letters with stated organisational or individual reasons before issuing any notice.
  • Verify work permit and EU Blue Card conditions for any foreign national whose employment is being terminated.
  • Complete any mandatory trade union or works council consultation before the termination date.

One additional lesson concerns timing. Polish labour courts operate under strict procedural deadlines: an employee must file a reinstatement or compensation claim within 21 days of receiving the termination notice. Employers who act quickly, document thoroughly, and avoid procedural errors benefit from a short litigation window. Employers who do not may face claims that are difficult to defend even when the underlying business decision was entirely legitimate.

For international groups managing Polish subsidiaries, it is worth considering that employment termination rules in Poland differ materially from those in Western European jurisdictions. The comparison with Italian or German practice – where our firm also advises, as outlined in our employment practice overview for Italy – illustrates how procedural gaps between jurisdictions create real legal exposure. Similarly, employers with posted workers or cross-border mobility arrangements should review their obligations under the framework discussed in our analysis of posted workers from Spain to Poland and A1 certificates. For clients with multi-site operations, compliance obligations can extend beyond employment law into areas such as sustainability reporting – a topic addressed in our note on BREEAM and LEED certification legal implications in Poland.

Personal liability for HR directors and management board members is a real risk. Procedural failures in termination – particularly involving whistleblowers or protected categories – can result in court-ordered reinstatement that the employer cannot practically reverse. That outcome forfeits the organisational benefit the restructuring was designed to achieve.

Your company's specific termination situation may carry risks that are not visible until a court filing arrives. Acting after a claim is filed precludes several settlement and procedural options available before notice is issued.

To receive an expert assessment of your employment termination procedure in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does an employer in Poland always need to give a reason for termination?

A: For indefinite-term employment contracts, Polish labour law requires the termination letter to state a specific, genuine reason. Omitting the reason – or stating a reason that is vague or unverifiable – gives the employee grounds to claim compensation or reinstatement before a labour court. Fixed-term contracts do not require a stated reason, but the distinction must be applied correctly from the outset of the employment relationship.

Q: How long does a whistleblower remain protected after filing an internal report?

A: Under Polish legislation transposing the EU Whistleblowing Directive, an employee who has made a protected disclosure is shielded from termination for two years following the report. This protection applies to termination, demotion, and other adverse measures. The employer bears the burden of proving that any dismissal during this period was entirely unrelated to the disclosure. Documenting pre-existing performance or conduct concerns before the report date is essential for managing this risk.

Q: What is the cost exposure if an employment termination procedure is flawed?

A: A labour court may award compensation of between two weeks' and three months' salary, or order reinstatement with back pay covering the full period of the dispute. In complex cases involving whistleblowers or protected categories, the dispute period can extend to 12 months or more. For senior employees with long service, the financial exposure can reach six figures in PLN. Early legal review – before any notice is issued – is the most cost-effective way to manage this risk.

About KORDECKI & Partners

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 cross-border 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.