Since 8 July, businesses have been able to ask the Chief Labour Inspector whether their cooperation model is civil-law in nature or whether, in reality, it has the characteristics of an employment relationship.

The first 12 decisions have already been issued. Although this is far too small a sample to speak of an established practice, the proportions are noteworthy. Only four were favourable to the applicants, while in eight cases the Labour Inspectorate concluded that the described cooperation should be classified as an employment relationship.

More interesting than the statistics themselves, however, is what distinguishes the models accepted by the Labour Inspectorate from those it questioned.

The first conclusion is unsurprising: the wording of a contract will not protect a cooperation model if the day-to-day practice looks different.

In its interpretations, the Labour Inspectorate focused primarily on questions such as:

• who organises the contractor’s work, and how;
• who decides on the tasks, time and place of their performance; and
• how much genuine autonomy remains with the contractor.

This does not mean, however, that every organisational relationship with a business automatically results in an employment relationship. The first favourable interpretations demonstrate an important point: the use of the company’s infrastructure or a flat-rate method of determining remuneration does not, in itself, preclude a civil-law cooperation model. What matters is the overall structure of the relationship.

In the favourable interpretations – two concerning B2B arrangements and two concerning contracts of mandate – the Labour Inspectorate noted, among other things:

• the contractor’s independence;
• the absence of subordination;
• the possibility of using subcontractors; and
• the contractor bearing the business risk.

Before submitting an application, it is therefore worth examining not only the wording of the contracts, but also how the cooperation operates in practice: how tasks are allocated, what role coordinators play, whether schedules and reporting obligations exist, who decides when and where activities are performed, and how the possibility of using a substitute works in practice.

If a business is considering applying for an interpretation, the appropriate sequence of steps should therefore be:

analyse the existing Labour Inspectorate interpretations → audit contracts and organisational practice → potentially adjust the cooperation model → decide whether or not to submit an application.

Note:

A favourable interpretation provides protection within the limits of the factual circumstances presented in the application. If the actual manner in which the cooperation is performed differs from the description provided, the interpretation itself does not resolve the issue.

Find more articles in PRO HR September 2026