A senior manager signs a post-employment non-compete agreement on their last day. Six months later, the employer discovers the manager is working for a direct competitor – and the clause may not hold up in court. Polish employment law sets strict conditions for enforceability, and a poorly drafted clause is worse than none at all.
Non-compete clauses in Poland are governed by the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KP) and require a written agreement, a defined scope of restricted activity, and – for post-employment restrictions – mandatory financial compensation of at least 25% of the employee's prior remuneration for each month of the restriction period. Without compensation, a post-employment clause is void. The restriction period itself must be proportionate; courts regularly reduce or invalidate clauses that impose disproportionate burdens on employees.
This alert covers the two main clause types, the compensation threshold that determines enforceability, and the immediate steps employers should take to audit existing agreements before a dispute arises.
What are the two types of non-compete clauses under Polish law?
Polish labour law distinguishes sharply between in-employment and post-employment restrictions. Each type operates under different rules and carries different consequences for breach. Employers who conflate the two often end up with unenforceable agreements.
The in-employment clause prohibits competitive activity while the employment relationship is active. It requires a written agreement but does not require financial compensation. The National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) monitors compliance with written-form requirements, and a verbal restriction carries no legal weight. Breach by the employee triggers standard disciplinary and civil liability – including claims for damages.
The post-employment clause restricts activity after the contract ends. It applies only to employees with access to particularly sensitive information: trade secrets, customer data, or technical know-how whose disclosure could cause material harm to the employer. This threshold matters. A clause imposed on an employee who does not meet that access standard is legally vulnerable from the outset. The restriction period is set contractually – typically between three and twelve months – and the employer must pay compensation throughout.
- Written form is mandatory for both clause types
- Post-employment clauses require a defined restriction period
- The sensitive-information threshold must be satisfied
- Compensation of at least 25% of prior remuneration is non-negotiable
- Scope must be specific – a blanket prohibition on all competitive work is void
Employers in manufacturing, IT, and professional services frequently draft clauses that are too broad. A Warsaw-based IT company, for example, cannot prohibit a junior developer from working in the entire technology sector for twelve months. The Labour Court (Sąd Pracy) will reduce the scope – or strike the clause entirely.
When does a non-compete clause become unenforceable?
Unenforceability is the central risk. Polish courts apply a proportionality test: the restriction must be no wider than necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interest. Three failure points account for most enforcement losses.
First, missing or insufficient compensation. The 25% floor is calculated against the employee's average monthly remuneration from the period before the contract ended. Employers sometimes calculate compensation against base salary only, omitting bonuses and allowances. That miscalculation can reduce the effective rate below the statutory floor – making the clause void. We secured a reversal of a disputed non-compete enforcement claim for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), where the employer had systematically underpaid compensation by excluding quarterly bonuses from the base.
Second, an overly broad scope. Restricting an employee from working in an entire industry – rather than in a defined competitive role – fails the proportionality test. Courts in Poland regularly rewrite or invalidate such clauses. The personal liability exposure for directors who rely on unenforceable clauses to threaten former employees can itself create legal risk.
Third, early termination by the employer. Under Polish labour law, if the employer ceases to pay compensation during the restriction period, the employee is released from the obligation immediately. That release is automatic – no court order is required. Employers who stop payments to cut costs inadvertently free the employee to join a competitor the following day.
Foreign investors entering Poland – including those managing posted workers from Czech Republic or other EU states – should note that Polish non-compete rules apply to all employees working under Polish law contracts, regardless of the employer's home jurisdiction.
What immediate steps should employers take now?
An unenforceable clause discovered during litigation is too late to fix. The audit window is now – before a key employee resigns or a competitor approaches your team. Three actions should happen within 30 days.
Review every post-employment clause currently in force. Check that compensation payments are being made monthly, that the calculation base includes all remuneration components, and that the restriction period has not already expired. Our team obtained interim measures protecting a client's customer database worth over EUR 1m for a logistics firm in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), where a timely audit identified a clause that had lapsed unnoticed.
Redraft clauses that fail the proportionality test. Scope the restriction to a defined list of competitors or a defined geographic market – not an entire industry. Tie the restriction to the specific information the employee actually accessed. An employment lawyer Warsaw-based teams can engage should review the redraft before it is signed.
For employees subject to work permit Poland conditions or EU Blue Card status, confirm that the non-compete clause does not inadvertently restrict activity permitted under their immigration status. A clause that prevents an EU Blue Card holder from taking any employment during the restriction period may conflict with immigration law and create additional liability.
- Audit all active post-employment clauses within 30 days
- Verify compensation calculations include bonuses and allowances
- Redraft overbroad scope restrictions before the next resignation
Whistleblower Poland obligations also intersect here. An employee subject to a non-compete clause who reports a violation internally retains whistleblower protections. Employers should ensure that non-compete enforcement actions are not structured in a way that could be characterised as retaliation. For cross-border workforce questions – including posted workers from the United Kingdom – the same audit logic applies to any Polish-law employment contract.
Specific situations require tailored analysis. If your company has recently restructured, acquired a new business, or is managing a workforce reduction, existing non-compete agreements may need to be renegotiated or terminated on agreed terms. Relying on a clause drafted three years ago – before a restructuring changed the employee's role and access to sensitive information – is a common and costly mistake.
To receive an expert assessment of your non-compete agreements, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can an employer reduce the restriction period after the agreement is signed?
A: Yes, but only with the employee's written consent. A unilateral reduction by the employer is not permitted under the Labour Code. If the employer simply stops paying compensation, the employee is released from the restriction automatically – but the employer cannot unilaterally shorten the period while continuing to enforce it.
Q: How much does it cost to enforce a non-compete clause in a Polish labour court?
A: Employees pay no court fee in labour disputes. Employers pay a fee based on the value of the claim. Enforcement proceedings typically take between six and eighteen months at first instance, depending on the court's caseload. Interim injunctions are available but require demonstrating urgency and risk of irreversible harm.
Q: Is it true that a non-compete clause is automatically void if the employee is dismissed without notice?
A: This is a common misconception. Dismissal without notice does not automatically void a post-employment clause. The clause remains binding unless the employer stops paying compensation – at which point the employee is released. However, courts may consider the circumstances of dismissal when assessing whether enforcement is equitable.
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 law, workforce mobility, and non-compete enforcement. 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.