Workplace harassment – employer duties under

A Kraków-based technology company receives a formal complaint from a software engineer alleging months of repeated humiliation by a direct supervisor. The board asks a simple question: what exactly must we do now, and what happens if we get it wrong? The answer involves overlapping obligations under the Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, LC), whistleblower protection legislation, and potential personal liability for managers who fail to act within a defined window.

Polish law imposes a direct duty on every employer to prevent both harassment (molestowanie) and mobbing – defined under the Labour Code as persistent, prolonged psychological intimidation that undermines an employee's professional standing or causes health damage. Employers who fail to maintain an anti-harassment policy, investigate complaints, or take remedial action face claims for damages with no statutory cap, reinstatement orders, and administrative penalties imposed by the National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP). The obligation applies regardless of company size, sector, or the nationality of the workforce.

This page sets out the full compliance picture: the regulatory instruments that create employer liability, the internal procedures that courts expect to see in place, the cross-border dimension for foreign investors, and a practical checklist for self-assessment. Each section opens with the direct answer so that in-house teams and HR managers can identify their exposure quickly.

What does Polish law actually require employers to do?

The Labour Code places three distinct obligations on employers. First, they must actively counteract discrimination and harassment. Second, they must prevent mobbing. Third, they must respond to complaints in a way that is documented, impartial, and proportionate. These are not aspirational standards – courts treat them as minimum thresholds. An employer that does nothing after receiving a harassment complaint forfeits its main statutory defence and exposes directors to personal liability claims.

The distinction between harassment and mobbing matters in practice. Harassment under the LC covers any unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic – sex, age, disability, religion, nationality – that violates dignity or creates an intimidating environment. A single serious incident can qualify. Mobbing, by contrast, requires a pattern: the conduct must be persistent and prolonged, typically interpreted by Polish courts as lasting at least several weeks. Both carry separate liability tracks. Harassment triggers compensation equal to at least the national minimum wage (PLN 4,666 gross per month in 2026). Mobbing that causes health damage triggers uncapped damages plus a separate lump-sum payment if the employee resigns.

The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) records any enforcement judgments against legal entities, creating reputational consequences beyond the financial penalty. The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) can issue binding corrective orders and impose fines of up to PLN 30,000 per violation. For listed companies, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) may treat systemic governance failures – including inadequate HR compliance – as a material risk factor in supervisory assessments.

Employers should also be aware of the whistleblower protection framework. The Act on the Protection of Whistleblowers, which entered force in September 2024, requires companies with 50 or more employees to maintain an internal reporting channel. An employee who reports harassment through that channel receives statutory protection against retaliation for 12 months. Failure to establish the channel is itself a separate offence carrying a fine of up to PLN 50,000. The interaction between the whistleblower regime and internal anti-harassment procedures is one of the most common compliance gaps we see in practice.

Which internal procedures does a court expect to find in place?

Polish courts assess employer liability by working backwards from the complaint. They ask: did the employer have a written anti-harassment policy, a functioning complaints channel, and an investigation protocol? If the answer to any of these is no, the employer's defence collapses at the first stage. The policy itself need not be elaborate, but it must be communicated to every employee – courts have rejected defences based on policies that existed only on an intranet page that staff could not access.

The internal complaints procedure should designate a specific role or committee to receive and investigate allegations – not the direct line manager of the accused person. The investigation must be completed within a reasonable timeframe. Labour courts in Warsaw and Kraków have treated delays exceeding 30 days as evidence of bad faith. The investigator must be independent: using HR staff who report to the alleged harasser has been treated as a procedural defect that reopens employer liability even where the underlying allegation was unfounded.

We secured the dismissal of a mobbing claim against a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025) because the employer had documented each step of its investigation within a 21-day window and could show that the complainant had been offered alternative placement during the process. The court found that the employer had met its duty of care and awarded no damages. Documentation is the operative word: oral reassurances to the complainant carry no evidentiary weight.

The policy should also address retaliation explicitly. An employee who raises a harassment complaint and is subsequently dismissed, demoted, or subjected to adverse schedule changes has a statutory presumption of retaliatory intent operating in their favour. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. That reversal of the burden of proof is one of the most consequential features of Polish employment litigation and one that many foreign-owned companies overlook.

Written anti-harassment and anti-mobbing policy, communicated in writing to all staff
Designated complaints channel independent of the accused person's line of management
Investigation protocol with a maximum 30-day completion target
Non-retaliation clause with documented follow-up for the complainant
Internal reporting channel compliant with the Whistleblower Protection Act (companies with 50+ employees)

What are the financial and personal liability consequences of non-compliance?

Non-compliance creates three concurrent liability tracks. The company faces civil claims from the affected employee, administrative sanctions from PIP, and – where the harassment involves a criminal element such as stalking or coercion – potential criminal referrals. Each track operates independently. A settlement of the civil claim does not close the PIP investigation, and a PIP fine does not preclude a separate criminal complaint. Employers who treat a settlement as a full resolution are routinely surprised by follow-on enforcement.

The civil damages framework carries no statutory cap for mobbing-related health damage. Courts have awarded amounts ranging from a few months' salary to multi-year compensation packages where the employee can demonstrate long-term psychological harm through medical evidence. The minimum compensation for harassment linked to a protected characteristic is one month's minimum wage – currently PLN 4,666 – but courts routinely award several multiples of that figure where the conduct was sustained or managerial.

Personal liability of managers deserves specific attention. A board member or senior manager who was aware of harassment, took no action, and whose inaction caused the company to incur liability may face a claim under the Labour Code's general liability provisions. This is not theoretical: we have seen PIP enforcement proceedings name individual HR directors as responsible persons where the company had no documented complaints process. The irreversible consequence is that a finding of personal liability in an employment context can preclude the individual from serving as a board member in regulated sectors.

Our team obtained a favourable settlement capping employer exposure at PLN 85,000 for a logistics operator in Lower Silesia (spring 2026) by demonstrating that the company had initiated an investigation within 48 hours of receiving the complaint, even though its written policy was incomplete. Speed of response, documented in writing, reduced the damages assessment substantially. Acting within the first 48 hours forecloses several avenues of aggravated damages that courts would otherwise consider.

How should foreign investors approach workplace harassment compliance in Poland?

For a German or Dutch investor managing a Polish subsidiary, the starting point is usually a group-level code of conduct that was drafted for a different legal environment. The gap between that document and Polish statutory requirements is almost always wider than the legal team expects. Polish courts do not treat compliance with a parent company's global HR framework as a substitute for compliance with the Labour Code. The obligation is local, the enforcement is local, and the litigation risk sits with the Polish entity.

Cross-border workforce arrangements add another layer. Companies that post workers to Poland from other EU Member States must comply with Polish working conditions from day one of the posting, including anti-harassment obligations. The posted workers framework and A1 certificate requirements are a related compliance area that frequently surfaces in PIP audits of foreign-owned manufacturers. An inspector who arrives to verify A1 documentation will also review HR policies – and a missing anti-harassment policy creates an immediate corrective order.

Companies employing Ukrainian or other non-EU nationals face an additional dimension. Work permit holders in Poland – whether on standard work permits or EU Blue Cards – are entitled to exactly the same anti-harassment protections as Polish nationals. There is no reduced standard for migrant workers. An employer who assumes that a non-EU national is less likely to bring a claim is taking a risk: the employment lawyer Warsaw-based courts appoint as a legal aid representative in such cases is often highly experienced in exactly this type of claim. The PIP enforcement powers in 2026 include expanded authority to audit migrant worker conditions.

Transfer pricing and intercompany service agreements between a Polish subsidiary and its foreign parent can also create indirect exposure. Where the parent charges the subsidiary a management fee that covers HR compliance services, a PIP finding that those services were not actually delivered – because no functioning anti-harassment procedure existed – can prompt a tax authority query about the deductibility of the fee. The intersection of HR compliance and Polish tax advisory obligations is a point that integrated legal and tax teams handle more efficiently than siloed advisers.

Foreign investors should also map their Polish entity against the whistleblower threshold. A subsidiary with 50 or more employees must have an internal reporting channel in place. Many mid-size subsidiaries of international groups sit just above or just below this threshold and have not conducted a headcount review since the Act entered force in September 2024. The fine for non-compliance is up to PLN 50,000, but the reputational damage of a public enforcement action is typically the greater concern for listed parent companies.

Self-assessment checklist: what to prepare before a PIP audit

PIP audits of HR compliance are announced with as little as three working days' notice. In that window, the employer must be able to produce a written anti-harassment policy, evidence of employee communication, records of any complaints received and their outcomes, and documentation of the whistleblower channel. Auditors are trained to spot policies that were printed the day before the visit: version control metadata on documents is routinely reviewed.

The checklist below reflects the documents PIP inspectors request most frequently. It is also the baseline that employment courts use when assessing whether an employer discharged its duty of care. Completing this checklist does not eliminate litigation risk, but it substantially narrows the employer's exposure on the primary liability questions.

Written anti-harassment and anti-mobbing policy with a version date and distribution record
Signed acknowledgements from all current employees confirming receipt of the policy
Documented complaints channel with a named contact independent of senior management
Records of any complaints received, investigation steps taken, and outcomes reached
Whistleblower reporting channel (for employers with 50+ employees) with a written procedure

One practical point on documentation: Polish courts accept electronic acknowledgement records – an email confirmation or a learning management system completion record – as evidence of communication. Paper signatures are not required. However, the record must show that the employee received and read the document, not merely that it was sent. A sent-email log without a read receipt or acknowledgement is insufficient.

Companies that have received a harassment complaint within the last 12 months should conduct a retrospective review of their investigation file before any audit. If the file is incomplete, a voluntary disclosure to PIP – accompanied by a remediation plan – is treated more favourably than a file that inspectors discover is deficient. The window for voluntary remediation closes the moment the PIP inspector arrives on site.

Specific situation requires tailored advice. If your company is facing an active harassment complaint, preparing for a PIP audit, or building a compliant procedure from scratch, acting now forecloses the irreversible consequence of an uncapped damages award or a corrective order that becomes public record. To receive an expert assessment of your company's exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

For employers whose workforce includes posted workers, non-EU nationals on work permits, or EU Blue Card holders, the compliance picture is more layered. Our employment and global mobility team can map your specific headcount against each applicable threshold and produce a gap analysis within five working days.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Does a small company with fewer than 10 employees need a formal anti-harassment policy?

A: Yes. The Labour Code obligation to counteract harassment and mobbing applies to all employers regardless of size. There is no minimum headcount threshold for the anti-harassment duty. The whistleblower reporting channel requirement applies separately to companies with 50 or more employees, but the core anti-harassment obligations under the Labour Code bind even a two-person business. Courts have upheld harassment claims against micro-employers where no policy existed.

Q: How long does a harassment investigation typically take, and what happens if the employer misses that window?

A: Labour courts in Poland treat 30 days as the outer limit for a first-instance investigation finding. Delays beyond that point are routinely cited as evidence of bad faith or indifference, which courts use to increase the damages award. The 30-day clock runs from the date the employer receives the complaint in writing. If the investigation requires external expertise – for example, a psychological assessment – the employer should document why the extension was necessary and communicate the revised timeline to the complainant in writing.

Q: Can an employer be liable for harassment committed by a client or contractor rather than an employee?

A: This is a common misconception. Polish employment law imposes a duty to provide a safe working environment, which courts have interpreted to include taking reasonable steps to prevent harassment by third parties – clients, contractors, or visitors – where the employer was aware of the risk. An employer who receives a complaint about a client's conduct and takes no action may be held liable for the resulting harm, even though the harasser was not an employee. The standard is whether the employer could reasonably have intervened.

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, workplace harassment procedures, and global mobility. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.