Workplace harassment – employer duties under Polish law

A Kraków-based IT company receives a formal complaint from a software developer alleging months of systematic bullying by a team lead. The HR manager asks the obvious question: what exactly must the employer do now, and how quickly? Under Polish labour law, the answer involves specific procedural obligations, defined timelines, and personal liability for board members who ignore the rules.

Polish employment law imposes a direct duty on every employer to prevent and respond to workplace harassment. The Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KP) defines mobbing as persistent and prolonged harassment that undermines an employee's professional standing or causes psychological harm. Employers must maintain anti-harassment policies, investigate complaints within a reasonable timeframe, and apply disciplinary measures against perpetrators. Failure to act exposes the company to compensation claims, reinstatement orders, and regulatory scrutiny by the Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (State Labour Inspectorate, PIP).

This guide covers the four stages every employer must work through: understanding the legal framework, building a prevention system, running an investigation, and managing the aftermath. Each stage carries distinct risks. Skipping any one of them can convert a manageable HR incident into a multi-year court dispute.

What does Polish law actually require from employers on harassment?

The Labour Code places the obligation squarely on the employer – not on HR, not on managers, but on the legal entity itself. The law distinguishes two separate concepts: sexual harassment (molestowanie seksualne) and mobbing. Both trigger employer liability. The distinction matters for procedure: mobbing requires showing persistence over time, while a single serious incident can constitute sexual harassment.

Every employer must have a written anti-harassment policy. The Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland) has confirmed that the absence of such a policy is itself evidence of negligence in harassment litigation. The policy must be accessible to all employees – posting it on the intranet is insufficient if workers lack computer access. Paper distribution or mandatory training sessions satisfy the standard. For companies with a trade union, the policy must be agreed with employee representatives before implementation.

Three core duties flow from the Labour Code:

• Maintain a documented anti-harassment policy updated at least every two years
• Designate a responsible person or committee to receive and process complaints
• Respond to every complaint – even anonymous ones – within a defined internal timeline

The Główny Inspektorat Pracy (Chief Labour Inspectorate, GIP) can impose fines of up to PLN 30,000 per violation during a workplace inspection. Inspectors increasingly check for policy documentation as a routine audit item. A manufacturing client in the Silesia region avoided a PLN 20,000 fine in autumn 2025 after we helped them implement a compliant policy framework before a scheduled PIP inspection.

One common misconception: many employers believe that if no formal complaint is filed, no duty arises. This is wrong. The Labour Code imposes a preventive obligation. If management witnesses harassment and takes no action, the company can be held liable even without a written complaint from the victim.

How should employers build a harassment prevention system?

Prevention is the cheaper option. A well-designed system costs a fraction of the legal fees generated by a single contested harassment case. The prevention framework has three pillars: policy, training, and a complaint channel. All three must be operational before a complaint arrives – retrofitting them after the fact carries little legal weight.

The anti-harassment policy should define prohibited conduct with concrete examples, set out the complaint procedure step by step, and specify the consequences of confirmed harassment. Generic language ("harassment is prohibited and will be sanctioned") does not satisfy the standard. Courts examine whether the policy gave employees a realistic understanding of what conduct crosses the line.

Training is not optional. The Labour Code requires employers to provide employees with information about their rights and the employer's obligations. Annual awareness sessions of at least 60 minutes, documented with attendance records, represent current best practice. For managers, a separate module on handling disclosures and avoiding retaliation is strongly advisable.

The complaint channel deserves particular attention now. Poland's Ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów (Whistleblower Protection Act, WPA) – which transposed the EU Whistleblowing Directive – requires employers with 50 or more employees to maintain a secure internal reporting channel. Harassment complaints can be routed through this channel. Employers who have not yet implemented the WPA system face a separate set of fines up to PLN 100,000. The two compliance obligations – Labour Code and WPA – overlap and should be addressed together.

For foreign investors entering Poland, this intersection is often overlooked. A German investor's subsidiary in Mazowieckie found in spring 2026 that its group-level whistleblower platform did not meet Polish statutory requirements – our team restructured the channel to satisfy both the WPA and the Labour Code simultaneously.

What are the steps for investigating a harassment complaint?

Once a complaint arrives, the clock starts. There is no single statutory deadline for completing an investigation, but courts assess reasonableness. A 30-day investigation for a straightforward two-party complaint is generally defensible. Complex cases involving multiple witnesses may extend to 60 days – beyond that, courts begin to question employer diligence.

Step one: acknowledge receipt in writing within 5 working days. This protects the employer against claims that the complaint was ignored. Step two: appoint an investigation committee. The committee should include at least one person with no prior involvement in the matter. HR alone is insufficient – an independent member (legal counsel, external expert, or senior manager from a different department) adds credibility.

The investigation procedure should follow these stages:

• Collect the complainant's written account and supporting evidence
• Interview the accused person separately, giving them a genuine opportunity to respond
• Interview witnesses identified by both parties
• Review documentary evidence (emails, messaging logs, performance records)
• Prepare a written findings report with a clear conclusion

The findings report is critical. It must state whether the alleged conduct occurred, whether it meets the legal definition of harassment, and what measures are recommended. Vague conclusions ("the situation was tense on both sides") are routinely challenged in court. The report should be retained for at least 10 years – this matches the general limitation period for employment claims.

Confidentiality must be maintained throughout. Disclosing the complainant's identity to colleagues or management not involved in the investigation can itself trigger liability. The accused employee also has a right to be informed of the allegations in sufficient detail to respond – but not necessarily to see the full complaint text before the interview.

What liability does the employer face if harassment is confirmed or the process fails?

Confirmed harassment without an adequate employer response generates two types of exposure. First, the victim may claim compensation for psychological harm – courts have awarded amounts ranging from PLN 10,000 to PLN 150,000 depending on severity and duration. Second, if the victim resigned due to the harassment, they may claim severance equivalent to their notice pay plus additional damages. There is no statutory cap on these claims.

Personal liability of board members is a separate risk. Under Polish corporate legislation, directors who knowingly allowed a harassment culture to persist can face claims from the company's creditors if the company subsequently becomes insolvent. This is a distinct channel from the employment claim and operates through the Commercial Companies Code (KSH). The risk is real, not theoretical – it precedes and survives any corporate restructuring.

Process failures are as dangerous as substantive failures. An employer who runs a biased investigation – for example, using a committee member who reported to the accused – may lose in court even if the original harassment allegation was weak. Courts apply a due-process standard to the investigation itself. An irreversible consequence of procedural failure is that even a company that took reasonable preventive steps can be held liable if the investigation was procedurally flawed.

Three scenarios illustrate the liability spectrum:

• Manufacturing company (Łódź): no policy, no investigation – full compensation award plus legal costs
• IT company (Warsaw): policy in place, investigation conducted but report vague – reduced award, employer found partially at fault
• Foreign investor subsidiary (Wrocław): full procedure followed, documented training records – claim dismissed at first instance

The pattern is clear. Employers who invest in the system before the complaint arrives consistently achieve better outcomes. Those who rely on ad hoc responses forfeits procedural defences that are otherwise available.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does the anti-harassment policy need to be agreed with a trade union?

A: Where a trade union operates within the company, the Labour Code requires the employer to agree the anti-harassment policy with employee representatives before it takes effect. In the absence of a trade union, the employer may adopt the policy unilaterally after consulting elected employee representatives (if any). Failure to follow the correct adoption procedure can render the policy unenforceable in litigation, even if its content is substantively correct.

Q: How long does the employer have to complete a harassment investigation?

A: There is no single fixed statutory deadline, but 30 days is generally treated as the benchmark for straightforward cases. The Labour Code requires employers to act promptly. Courts have penalised employers who took longer than 60 days without a documented reason. Delays beyond 90 days are treated by courts as evidence of bad faith, which can increase the compensation awarded to the complainant.

Q: Can an employer be liable for harassment committed by a client or contractor, not an employee?

A: Yes. The Labour Code's preventive obligation extends to the working environment as a whole. If an employer is aware that a client or contractor is harassing its employees and takes no action, liability can arise. The employer is expected to address the conduct directly with the third party and, if necessary, terminate the commercial relationship or reassign the affected employee. Ignoring third-party harassment because the perpetrator is not on the payroll is a misconception that frequently arises in outsourcing-heavy sectors.

What should employers prepare before a complaint arrives?

Prevention requires documentation. The checklist below applies to companies of any size, though the WPA channel obligation applies only to employers with 50 or more employees. For smaller employers, a simplified internal procedure still satisfies the Labour Code's preventive duty.

• Written anti-harassment policy, reviewed within the last 24 months and accessible to all staff
• Designated complaint recipient with a documented mandate and contact details
• Annual training records for all employees, with separate records for managers
• Internal reporting channel compliant with the Whistleblower Protection Act (for employers with 50+ staff)
• Template investigation procedure and findings report, approved by legal counsel

For employers with operations in multiple jurisdictions, the Polish requirements sit alongside EU-level obligations under the Equal Treatment Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Companies subject to CSRD reporting will need to demonstrate that their harassment prevention systems meet the social pillar criteria. This connection between employment compliance and ESG reporting is an area where early preparation pays dividends.

For context on cross-border employment obligations that interact with Polish workplace law, see our analysis of posted workers from Luxembourg to Poland and A1 certificates and our guide on posted workers from the United Kingdom to Poland. For investors considering structural questions alongside employment compliance, our overview of the joint venture framework under Polish corporate law addresses related governance considerations.

A specific harassment complaint, or the absence of a compliant prevention system, creates irreversible exposure the moment a court claim is filed. The window to build a defensible record closes at that point.

If your company operates in Poland with 10 or more employees and does not yet have a documented anti-harassment framework, the risk of a PLN 30,000 fine and uncapped compensation claims is current and growing. To receive an expert assessment of your prevention system and investigation procedures, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

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, harassment prevention, and workplace investigations. 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.