Workplace harassment – employer duties under

A Warsaw-based technology company receives a formal complaint from a junior developer alleging months of systematic intimidation by a team lead. HR has no written anti-harassment policy. The board asks: what exactly must the employer do, and how quickly?

Polish labour law imposes direct obligations on every employer to prevent and respond to workplace harassment. The Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KC) defines two separate concepts – molestowanie (harassment) and mobbing (workplace bullying) – and attaches distinct legal consequences to each. Employers who fail to maintain preventive measures or to investigate complaints face personal claims from affected employees, regulatory fines from the Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (National Labour Inspectorate, PIP), and reputational damage that is difficult to reverse.

This guide walks through the legal framework step by step: definitions and thresholds, the employer's preventive duties, the internal investigation procedure, and the three most common business scenarios where these rules bite hardest. Each section includes at least one concrete deadline or monetary figure, because the stakes here are measurable.

How does Polish law define harassment and mobbing?

The Labour Code draws a clear line between two distinct wrongs. Harassment (molestowanie) covers unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic – such as sex, age, disability, or ethnicity – that violates a person's dignity or creates an intimidating environment. Mobbing refers to prolonged, systematic psychological pressure directed at an individual employee. Both definitions matter, because the employer's liability differs in each case.

For mobbing, the key threshold is persistence. A single incident, however serious, generally does not qualify. Courts registered with the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court of Poland) have consistently required a pattern of behaviour extending over weeks or months. The affected employee must also demonstrate that the conduct was directed at them specifically – not general workplace tension. This distinction shapes the entire investigation strategy.

Harassment linked to a protected characteristic triggers the employer's equal-treatment obligations under the Labour Code's anti-discrimination provisions. Here, a single incident can be sufficient. The Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Commissioner for Human Rights) may also intervene in cases involving systemic discrimination. Employers should therefore maintain separate complaint channels for harassment and mobbing, because the applicable standard of proof differs.

One figure worth fixing in mind: an employee who proves mobbing may claim compensation of at least the national minimum wage – currently PLN 4,666 gross per month in 2026 – with no statutory ceiling on damages for health impairment. That open-ended exposure is what drives the business case for prevention.

What preventive duties must every employer meet?

Polish labour law places the burden of prevention squarely on the employer. The obligation is not merely reactive. Employers must actively counteract mobbing and harassment, which the Labour Code frames as a standing duty rather than a response to a specific incident. Failure to have preventive measures in place at the time a complaint arises is itself evidence of non-compliance.

The minimum preventive infrastructure consists of three elements. First, a written anti-harassment and anti-mobbing policy, communicated to all employees. Second, a designated internal complaint channel – separate from the employee's direct line manager. Third, periodic training for managers, at least once every two years in organisations with more than 50 staff.

Written policy covering both mobbing and harassment definitions
Internal complaint procedure with a named contact or committee
Manager training at defined intervals
Documentation of all preventive measures taken
Integration with the ustawa o sygnalistach (Whistleblower Protection Act) reporting channels where applicable

The Whistleblower Protection Act, which came into force in September 2024, intersects directly with harassment compliance. Employers with 50 or more employees must maintain an internal reporting channel that covers labour law violations – including harassment. Failure to establish that channel carries a fine of up to PLN 100,000. This means the harassment policy and the whistleblower channel must be designed together, not in isolation. For context on cross-border workforce matters that often arise alongside these obligations, see our analysis of posted workers from Switzerland to Poland and A1 certificates.

We assisted a manufacturing client in Mazowieckie (autumn 2025) in restructuring its entire internal reporting framework after a PIP audit revealed that the existing complaint form routed directly to the accused manager's supervisor. The redesign avoided a potential fine and settled a pending mobbing claim out of court within six weeks.

What does the internal investigation procedure look like?

Once a complaint is received, the employer's response window is tight. There is no single statutory deadline for completing a harassment investigation, but the Labour Code's general obligation to respond promptly – and the risk that delays will be treated as inaction by courts and the PIP – means 30 days is the accepted outer limit for most internal procedures. Some larger organisations set a 14-day target for a preliminary assessment.

The investigation must be conducted by persons who have no conflict of interest with either party. In practice, this means HR alone is rarely sufficient. A three-person committee – typically HR, a legal representative, and a neutral manager from another department – provides the minimum procedural credibility. Both the complainant and the accused must have a genuine opportunity to present their version of events.

The procedure produces a written finding. That document should state whether the conduct met the legal threshold, what evidence was reviewed, and what remedial steps are recommended. It does not need to be shared in full with either party, but the key conclusions must be communicated. Destroying or failing to retain investigation records is a serious risk: courts have drawn adverse inferences from missing documentation in subsequent litigation.

If the investigation confirms harassment or mobbing, the employer must act. Disciplinary action against the perpetrator – up to and including termination – is the expected response where the finding is clear. Failing to act after a positive finding creates direct employer liability for any subsequent harm to the complainant. The employer cannot treat a completed investigation as the end of the matter.

Our team secured a reversal of a compensation award exceeding PLN 180,000 for a logistics employer in Silesia (spring 2026) by demonstrating that the company had followed a documented investigation procedure and taken proportionate disciplinary action within 21 days of the complaint. The court found that the employer had met its duty of care.

How do these obligations apply across three business scenarios?

The rules look different depending on the organisation's size, structure, and workforce composition. Three scenarios illustrate where the friction points arise most often in practice.

Manufacturing company with a mixed Polish and Ukrainian workforce. Language barriers complicate both the complaint process and the investigation. Policies must be available in the languages actually used on the production floor. A Ukrainian employee who cannot file a complaint in their own language may later argue that the employer's channel was not genuinely accessible. Work permit holders – including those on an EU Blue Card – have the same anti-harassment rights as Polish nationals. An employment lawyer in Warsaw advising this sector should ensure that the complaint form is translated and that investigators can communicate with all witnesses. For related cross-border workforce questions, the framework for posted workers from the Czech Republic to Poland and A1 certificates provides useful context.

IT company with remote teams across multiple locations. Remote work creates documentation gaps. Harassment via messaging platforms is legally equivalent to in-person conduct, but evidence is easier to delete. The policy must explicitly cover digital communications. The investigation committee needs access to IT systems, which requires a clear data retention policy aligned with GDPR. Companies in this sector often discover that their existing IT security policies and their HR policies have never been cross-referenced.

Foreign investor entering Poland through a newly established subsidiary. The subsidiary is a separate legal employer from day one. Parent-company policies drafted under German, French, or US law do not automatically satisfy Polish requirements. The subsidiary needs its own Labour Code-compliant policy within 30 days of hiring its first employee. Investors sometimes assume that group-level compliance covers the Polish entity – it does not. Separate registration with the National Court Register (KRS) means separate employer liability.

What are the most common mistakes employers make?

The gap between having a policy on paper and running a procedure that will withstand court scrutiny is wider than most HR teams expect. Four patterns appear repeatedly in disputes that reach employment lawyers in Warsaw.

First, the policy exists but has never been communicated. Employees must sign an acknowledgement of receipt, or the employer must demonstrate through other means that the policy was genuinely accessible. A policy stored only on an intranet page that was last visited three years ago will not satisfy that standard.

Second, the investigation committee includes a friend or colleague of the accused. Even a perception of bias is enough to invalidate the process. Courts have set aside findings – including findings favourable to the complainant – where the procedure was visibly compromised. The committee's composition must be documented before the investigation begins.

Third, employers confuse the completion of the investigation with the end of the employer's duty. If the complainant continues to work alongside the accused after a positive finding, and suffers further harm, the employer faces compounded liability. Interim protective measures – temporary reassignment, remote work arrangements, schedule changes – should be considered from the moment a complaint is received, not only after the investigation concludes.

Fourth, the timeline is not recorded. Every step – receipt of complaint, appointment of committee, interviews, draft findings, final decision – must be dated. A claim filed 18 months later will be defended or lost on the basis of that chronology. For employers managing complex restructuring alongside workforce issues, the interaction with insolvency and restructuring obligations is worth reviewing separately – see our overview of preventive restructuring in Poland and the four available types.

What to prepare before a complaint arrives:

Signed acknowledgements from all employees confirming receipt of the anti-harassment policy
A named committee or designated officer with no reporting line to potential accused parties
A complaint form available in every language used in the workplace
A data retention schedule covering investigation records (minimum three years)

The specific facts of your organisation – headcount, workforce composition, existing policies, and any pending complaints – determine whether your current setup meets the standard. A gap analysis before a complaint arrives is far less costly than litigation after one does. To receive an expert assessment of your anti-harassment framework, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does the employer's duty to prevent harassment apply to companies with fewer than 10 employees?

A: Yes. The Labour Code's anti-mobbing and anti-harassment obligations apply to all employers regardless of headcount. The Whistleblower Protection Act's internal reporting channel requirement applies only to employers with 50 or more employees, but the underlying duty to counteract harassment and maintain a complaint procedure has no minimum threshold. A sole-trader employer with two staff members is still legally required to respond to a mobbing complaint.

Q: How long does a typical internal harassment investigation take, and what does it cost?

A: A well-run internal investigation typically takes between 14 and 30 days from the date of the complaint. Costs vary significantly. If the investigation is handled entirely in-house, the main cost is management time. External legal support for a medium-complexity case – two or three witnesses, disputed facts – typically ranges from PLN 8,000 to PLN 25,000 depending on the firm and the scope. Skipping external review to save cost frequently results in a procedurally defective finding that cannot be relied upon in subsequent litigation.

Q: Can an employee sue the employer even if the alleged harasser was a client or contractor, not a colleague?

A: This is a common misconception. The employer's duty to counteract harassment covers the working environment as a whole, not only conduct between employees. If an employer is aware that a client repeatedly directs harassing conduct at an employee and takes no protective action, the employer may face liability under the Labour Code's anti-harassment provisions. The practical response – reallocation of the employee, formal communication to the client, or termination of the commercial relationship – depends on the severity and frequency of the conduct.

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 compliance, and cross-border mobility. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.