Workplace harassment – employer duties under

A mid-sized logistics company in Warsaw receives a formal complaint: a warehouse supervisor has been systematically humiliating a team member for several months. The HR manager asks the obvious question – what exactly must the employer do now, and how quickly? The answer determines whether the company faces a fine, a civil damages claim, or both.

Under Polish labour law, every employer – regardless of headcount – is legally required to prevent workplace harassment and to respond to complaints within a defined internal procedure. The Kodeks pracy (Labour Code, KC) imposes a direct duty of care on the employer, not merely on the individual harasser. Failure to act exposes the company to civil liability, National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) sanctions, and reputational damage that is difficult to reverse.

This page explains the regulatory framework, the instruments employers must have in place, the pitfalls that generate liability, and the cross-border considerations relevant to foreign-owned businesses operating in Poland. A practical checklist closes the analysis.

What does Polish law require employers to do about workplace harassment?

The Labour Code defines harassment (mobbing) as conduct directed at an employee that is persistent, prolonged, and aimed at – or resulting in – humiliation, isolation, or elimination from the team. Three elements must be present: systematic behaviour, duration, and a degrading effect. A single incident, however serious, does not meet the statutory threshold for mobbing, though it may trigger separate liability under anti-discrimination provisions.

Every employer must implement an internal anti-harassment policy. The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) treats the absence of such a policy as an immediate violation. The policy must identify a complaints procedure, designate a person or body to receive reports, and set out the investigation timeline – typically no longer than 30 days from receipt of a complaint. The Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy (National Labour Inspectorate, PIP) can impose fines of up to PLN 30,000 per violation during a routine inspection.

The employer's duty is preventive, not merely reactive. This means regular training, clear reporting channels, and documented managerial accountability. The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) records on a company do not shield directors from personal exposure where the board knowingly ignored systemic harassment. Three institutions are particularly relevant in enforcement: PIP for administrative sanctions, the district labour court for civil claims, and the Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich (Ombudsman) for public-sector complaints.

Employers who can demonstrate a functioning anti-harassment system – with records of training, completed investigations, and disciplinary outcomes – are in a materially stronger position before any of these bodies. Documentation is the employer's primary defence.

Which instruments must an employer implement?

Polish law does not prescribe a single template, but enforcement practice has settled on four core instruments. Each must be implemented before a complaint arises, not in response to one. Retroactive policy creation is treated by PIP inspectors as evidence of bad faith.

Anti-harassment policy – a written document adopted as part of the internal labour regulations (regulamin pracy) or as a standalone act, covering definitions, prohibited conduct, and sanctions.
Complaints procedure – a clearly documented path from report to decision, with named recipients, confidentiality obligations, and a maximum 30-day investigation window.
Training programme – periodic sessions for managers and employees, with attendance records retained for at least 3 years.
Investigation body – an internal committee or a designated HR officer; for smaller employers, an external specialist may fulfil this role.

The whistleblower framework is directly relevant here. Since June 2024, Poland's Whistleblower Protection Act (ustawa o ochronie sygnalistów) requires employers with 50 or more employees to maintain a separate internal reporting channel for legal violations, including workplace harassment. A whistleblower Poland employer must ensure that reports submitted through this channel receive the same substantive investigation as a direct harassment complaint. Failure to maintain the channel carries fines of up to PLN 1.5 million.

We secured a settlement exceeding PLN 400,000 for an employee subjected to systematic exclusion by a direct manager at a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The employer had no functioning investigation procedure, which accelerated the claimant's legal position significantly.

For employers with foreign employees, the internal policy must be accessible in the working language of the employee. This is particularly important where posted workers or permit holders are part of the workforce. An employment lawyer Warsaw practice will typically audit policy accessibility as a first step.

What are the most common pitfalls that generate employer liability?

Most harassment-related litigation in Poland does not arise because the employer created a hostile environment. It arises because the employer failed to act, acted too slowly, or acted without documentation. Three failure modes account for the majority of adverse outcomes.

The first is delay. Once a written complaint is received, the investigation clock starts. An employer who takes 90 days to conclude an investigation – while the alleged harasser remains in daily contact with the complainant – faces a strong argument that the delay itself constitutes a breach of the duty of care. Labour courts have awarded damages exceeding PLN 100,000 in cases where the employer's inaction prolonged the harm.

The second is confidentiality failure. Harassment investigations are sensitive. If the complainant's identity is disclosed to the alleged harasser before the investigation concludes, the employer may face a separate claim for breach of personal data protection under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Polish implementing legislation. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) has issued sector-specific guidance for financial institutions on data handling in internal investigations – guidance that illustrates a broader regulatory expectation.

The third is retaliation. Dismissing or demoting an employee who filed a harassment complaint within 12 months of the complaint is presumed by law to be retaliatory. The burden of proof shifts to the employer to show a legitimate, unrelated reason. This is a high bar. Personal liability for board members can arise where the decision to dismiss was made at director level – a risk that connects to the broader framework discussed in our analysis of board liability for tax arrears.

A practical self-assessment: if the answer to any of the following is "no," the employer is exposed.

Is the anti-harassment policy in writing and acknowledged by all employees?
Is there a named person or body to receive complaints?
Are investigation timelines documented and consistently met?
Are training records retained for at least 3 years?
Is the whistleblower reporting channel operational (for employers with 50+ staff)?

For a tailored audit of your internal procedures, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

How do cross-border employment arrangements affect harassment obligations?

Foreign investors and multinationals operating in Poland frequently assume that group-level HR policies satisfy Polish legal requirements. They do not. Polish law applies to the employment relationship regardless of where the parent company is incorporated or where the group policy was drafted.

For posted workers – employees sent to Poland from another EU member state – the host employer's anti-harassment obligations apply from day one of the posting. A German company posting engineers to a Warsaw project site for 6 months cannot rely on German internal procedures to discharge its Polish law duties. The posting notification submitted to PIP does not substitute for a Polish-compliant harassment policy at the project site. Our guide on posted workers from Czech Republic to Poland sets out the A1 certificate and notification framework in detail.

For employees holding a work permit Poland or an EU Blue Card, the permit itself creates no exemption from harassment protection. Permit holders enjoy the same substantive rights as Polish nationals. An employer who treats a work permit Poland holder differently in the context of a harassment investigation – for example, by threatening non-renewal of the permit as leverage – faces both a harassment claim and a potential charge of discrimination on grounds of nationality.

We obtained interim protective measures for a Ukrainian national employed at a technology subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), where the employer had conditioned permit renewal on the employee withdrawing a harassment complaint. The court granted relief within 14 days of the application.

Spanish and other EU nationals posted to Poland face the same framework. Our detailed analysis of posted workers from Spain to Poland addresses the A1 certificate obligations that run alongside harassment compliance. Cross-border employers should treat these as parallel obligations, not alternatives.

For a tailored strategy on cross-border harassment compliance, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

What does a compliant employer response look like in practice?

Speed and structure are the two markers of a compliant response. When a complaint arrives – whether in writing or verbally – the employer must act within 7 days to acknowledge receipt and initiate the investigation. Verbal complaints should be documented immediately.

The investigation should be conducted by a person with no prior involvement in the matter. For employers with fewer than 50 employees, an external employment lawyer Warsaw can fulfil this role. The investigator interviews the complainant, the alleged harasser, and any witnesses. All interviews are recorded in writing and signed by the interviewee. The investigation concludes with a written finding, which is communicated to both parties.

Where harassment is confirmed, the employer must take disciplinary action within 14 days of the finding. Inaction after a confirmed finding is treated as ratification of the conduct. The disciplinary options range from a written warning to termination with immediate effect – the latter available where the conduct constitutes a serious breach of employee duties.

Three business scenarios illustrate the decision matrix:

Manufacturing employer, 200 employees: mandatory anti-harassment policy, whistleblower channel, annual training, internal investigation committee. Timeline: policy adoption within 14 days of legal advice, channel operational within 30 days.
IT company, 45 employees: anti-harassment policy required; whistleblower channel not yet mandatory but recommended. External investigator on retainer is a cost-effective solution.
Foreign investor, newly established Polish subsidiary: group policy must be localised. PIP registration and policy adoption should precede the first hire. EU Blue Card and work permit Poland holders must be included in the policy scope from day one.

What to prepare before PIP inspection or litigation:

Signed copy of the anti-harassment policy, with employee acknowledgements
Training attendance records for the past 3 years
Log of complaints received and investigation outcomes
Whistleblower channel documentation (for employers with 50+ staff)
Written findings from any concluded investigation

Employers who cannot produce these documents within 48 hours of a PIP inspection request are at significant risk of a fine and an adverse finding that forfeits the ability to defend subsequent civil claims.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does an employer have to investigate a harassment complaint in Poland?

A: Polish enforcement practice treats 30 days as the standard maximum for an internal investigation. The Labour Code does not set a precise statutory deadline, but the National Labour Inspectorate consistently applies the 30-day benchmark during inspections. Employers who exceed this period without documented reasons face a presumption of procedural failure in subsequent litigation. Where the matter is complex, a reasoned extension to 45 days is defensible if communicated to the complainant.

Q: Does the whistleblower reporting channel replace the anti-harassment complaints procedure?

A: No – and this is a common misconception. The Whistleblower Protection Act channel covers legal violations broadly, including harassment, but it operates alongside – not instead of – the Labour Code complaints procedure. An employer must maintain both systems. The whistleblower channel applies to employers with 50 or more employees; the harassment complaints procedure applies to all employers regardless of size.

Q: What does a harassment claim cost an employer in Poland?

A: The Labour Code entitles a successful claimant to compensation for actual damage plus a lump-sum payment of not less than the minimum monthly wage (PLN 4,666 in 2026). In practice, district labour courts have awarded total amounts ranging from PLN 20,000 to over PLN 200,000, depending on the duration of the harassment, the severity of the harm, and the employer's conduct during the investigation. Legal costs and PIP fines are separate from damages.

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