A Warsaw-based technology company with 140 employees approached our employment practice in spring 2025. Management had been operating a hybrid work arrangement since 2022 – but entirely on informal terms. No written policies existed. No individual agreements had been signed. When a senior developer filed a complaint with the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP), the company faced simultaneous exposure on three fronts: regulatory, contractual, and reputational.
Polish labour law introduced a binding remote work framework through amendments to the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code) that took effect in April 2023. Every employer permitting remote work must adopt a formal policy – either a collective agreement with trade unions or an internal regulation – and execute individual written agreements with each remote employee. Failure to comply exposes the employer to PIP enforcement and personal liability of management board members for violations of employee rights.
This case study traces how we restructured the client's remote work arrangements from scratch, neutralised the PIP complaint, and built a framework that has since absorbed two further rounds of headcount growth. The lessons apply to any Polish employer – whether a domestic company or a foreign investor's subsidiary – operating hybrid or fully remote teams.
What was the client's exposure before we intervened?
The company had no regulamin pracy zdalnej (remote work regulation) in place. Employees worked from home on the basis of informal manager approvals sent by email. Under the Labour Code amendments, this arrangement was unlawful from the first day of the new rules. The employer had been operating outside the statutory framework for over two years.
The PIP complaint named three specific issues. First, the company had not defined a remote work location in any employment contract. Second, it had not provided written confirmation of the cost-reimbursement rules covering electricity and internet access – a mandatory element under Polish employment legislation. Third, no procedure existed for requesting occasional remote work, which carries a separate statutory cap of 24 days per calendar year.
PIP inspectors have the power to issue binding corrective orders with deadlines as short as 30 days. Non-compliance after a corrective order can lead to fines and, in serious cases, referral to the public prosecutor. The complaint also triggered an internal review by the client's German parent company, which had not been aware of the compliance gap. The reputational dimension proved almost as pressing as the legal one.
- No remote work regulation or collective agreement
- No individual written annexes to employment contracts
- No cost-reimbursement policy or lump-sum calculation
- No OSH (occupational health and safety) self-assessment protocol for home workstations
- No procedure for occasional remote work requests
How did we structure the remediation strategy?
The Labour Code requires employers with a trade union to negotiate remote work terms through collective bargaining. This client had no trade union, so we drafted a standalone internal regulation – the faster of the two permitted routes. The regulation had to be consulted with elected employee representatives before adoption. We coordinated that consultation process within a 14-day window, which satisfied the statutory requirement and met the PIP deadline simultaneously.
Individual written annexes were the next priority. Each of the 140 employment contracts needed an annex specifying: the agreed remote work location, the frequency or proportion of remote days, the cost-reimbursement mechanism, and the OSH self-assessment obligation. We templated the annex in two versions – one for hybrid employees and one for fully remote staff. The HR team executed all signatures within three weeks, before the PIP re-inspection date.
Cost reimbursement required a separate calculation. The Labour Code does not fix a mandatory amount but requires the employer to account for average electricity consumption and internet costs. We helped the client adopt a lump-sum approach – a flat monthly allowance of PLN 150 per remote employee – which is administratively simple and exempt from income tax and social contributions under current tax rules. This avoided the need for individual cost verification on a case-by-case basis.
We also drafted a one-page OSH self-assessment checklist for home workstations. Employees complete it before starting remote work and re-submit it annually. This satisfies the employer's statutory duty to ensure safe working conditions extends to the remote location – a point that PIP inspectors frequently scrutinise.
What did the PIP process look like in practice?
Our team submitted a written response to PIP within ten days of receiving the inspection notice. The response acknowledged the historical gap, outlined the remediation timetable, and attached draft versions of the regulation and annex templates. Presenting a credible remediation plan – rather than disputing the findings – materially influenced the inspector's approach. The inspector agreed to extend the corrective order deadline by 30 days.
We secured a full withdrawal of the PIP complaint findings for this client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2025). The inspector closed the matter after verifying that all 140 annexes had been signed, the regulation had been adopted and posted on the company's intranet, and the cost-reimbursement policy was operational. No fine was imposed.
The German parent's compliance team conducted its own review two weeks after PIP closure. They requested one additional document: a data protection impact assessment covering remote access to company systems. This was not a Labour Code requirement, but it intersected with the remote work framework. We prepared a brief DPIA addendum referencing the employer's existing GDPR processing register. That resolved the parent's concern without reopening the employment documentation.
For employers facing similar PIP scrutiny, the timeline matters. An inspection notice typically gives 7 to 14 days for an initial response. Employers who engage employment counsel immediately – rather than after the first deadline passes – retain significantly more room to negotiate the corrective order terms. The window for proactive remediation closes quickly. For context on how enforcement timelines interact with broader insolvency risk when fines accumulate, see our analysis of insolvency proceedings timeline from filing to closure.
What are the transferable lessons for Polish employers?
Three patterns recur across remote work mandates we handle. First, employers consistently underestimate the documentation burden. A policy posted on the intranet is not sufficient. Each employee must sign an individual annex – and that annex must contain all mandatory elements. Missing even one element (such as the OSH self-assessment obligation) can expose the employer to a fresh corrective order.
Second, the occasional remote work regime is frequently ignored. Up to 24 days per year can be granted at the employee's request without triggering the full remote work framework – but the employer must still record each instance and confirm it in writing. Companies that treat occasional remote days as informal favours are building a separate compliance gap alongside any structural one.
Third, foreign-owned subsidiaries face a double compliance layer. The Polish Labour Code governs the employment relationship. But parent-company policies on data security, expense reimbursement, and equipment provision may conflict with Polish statutory minimums. Reconciling those two layers requires employment counsel familiar with both Polish law and the parent's home jurisdiction. For Czech-owned entities specifically, our guide on employment law compliance for Czech Republic companies in Poland addresses the most common friction points.
The reclassification risk also deserves attention. Employers who allow remote workers to set their own hours, use personal equipment, and invoice as contractors – rather than employees – may face B2B reclassification proceedings under PIP's expanded enforcement powers. Our detailed analysis of B2B reclassification risk and PIP enforcement powers in 2026 sets out the current thresholds and the consequences of misclassification, which can include retroactive social contribution arrears running to several years.
What to prepare before a PIP inspection:
- Adopted remote work regulation or collective agreement, with adoption date confirmed
- Signed individual annexes for every remote or hybrid employee
- Written cost-reimbursement policy with lump-sum calculation or individual records
- OSH self-assessment forms completed and filed per employee
Employers operating without these documents should treat the absence as an active risk – not a future project. PIP can open an inspection at any time, including in response to a single employee complaint. The cost of remediation before an inspection is a fraction of the cost after one.
Your company's specific situation – headcount, hybrid ratio, union status, and any cross-border element – determines which documents are mandatory and which are discretionary. Getting that analysis wrong forfeits the cost and time savings that early compliance delivers.
To discuss how the remote work framework applies to your workforce, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Does a company with no trade union still need to consult employees before adopting a remote work regulation?
A: Yes. Where no trade union exists, the employer must consult elected employee representatives before the regulation takes effect. The Labour Code requires this consultation but does not fix a minimum duration. In practice, 14 days is the standard window. The regulation can be adopted if representatives do not respond within that period.
Q: How is the cost-reimbursement amount calculated, and is it taxable?
A: The Labour Code does not set a fixed amount. Employers may use either actual costs or a lump sum. A lump-sum allowance – commonly set between PLN 100 and PLN 200 per month – is exempt from personal income tax and social security contributions under current rules, provided it is documented in the remote work regulation. This makes the lump-sum route administratively preferable for most employers.
Q: Can an employer require employees to return to the office after granting permanent remote work?
A: Permanent remote work agreed in an employment contract or annex can only be reversed by mutual consent or – in limited circumstances – by the employer serving a notice of change. The Labour Code sets a notice period of at least 30 days before the change takes effect. Unilateral withdrawal without notice is unlawful and may give the employee grounds for a claim before the Labour Court (Sąd Pracy).
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 compliance, remote work structuring, and workforce 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.