Although the government withdrew the proposed amendment to the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP), this does not mean that nothing will change in its operations in 2026. In recent months, a shift has already been visible in the approach to how inspections are carried out and how consequences are imposed on employers. These changes will continue, as they do not require legislative amendments.

Remote and digital inspections

Already last year, the National Labour Inspectorate increasingly used digital options. Many inspections concern issues that do not require the inspector to be physically present at the workplace. Working time analysis, correct granting of leave, payment of remuneration – these are all document-based matters. Requiring employers to copy and deliver documents to inspectors generates unnecessary costs (not to mention environmental considerations).

Therefore, inspectors increasingly contact employers by email and accept documents in electronic form. This facilitates and accelerates document flow, improves communication and reduces costs.

In 2025, we represented an employer during an inspection in which there was not a single “live” meeting. We did not meet the client in person, the client did not meet the inspector, and we did not meet the inspector. All correspondence was conducted by email or telephone. All documents were provided electronically and explanations were submitted in writing.

The introduction of remote inspections was one of the assumptions of the abandoned amendment project. However, even without it, inspections will increasingly rely on technology.

PIP and petty-offence proceedings (with statistics)

It must be remembered that the National Labour Inspectorate has broad “police-like” powers. Inspections often identify various irregularities and breaches of labour law, with many statutes containing provisions imposing penalties for petty offences. There are so many, it seems that almost every labour law breach is punishable. And these are not “administrative” penalties borne by the employer (e.g. the company). What is often at issue is the individual and personal liability of a person – for example an HR director, a manager, or a management board member.

There are many areas of such individual liability in labour law. PIP statistics indicate that the greatest number of offences concern occupational health and safety. Under Article 283 § 1 of the Labour Code, every breach of OHS rules constitutes an offence (punishable by a fine of up to PLN 30,000), even if it does not result in any risk of accident. If a direct threat occurs, this becomes a criminal offence punishable by up to three years in prison, and PIP may notify the police or prosecutor of its suspicions.

Other frequent offences include:

• offences related to working time;
• gross breaches of rules when dismissing employees;
• the use of civil law contracts instead of employment contracts.

From January to September 2025, PIP carried out 43,000 inspections. Inspectors identified a record number of offences – nearly 36,000. They imposed 12,000 penalty tickets, totalling PLN 16.5 million.

Liability for an offence

Penalty tickets have replaced court judgments. These are not administrative decisions and not fines imposed on companies. The punished party is always an individual. In addition, the law prohibits fines (including one imposed by a ticket) from being paid on behalf of the punished person. A company cannot, therefore, pay a ticket fine for its employee, nor can provide the money for that purpose (e.g. as a donation or bonus). If a third party pays the fine, those funds are forfeited to the state and the original fine remains outstanding and due from the punished person. Additionally, paying a fine for someone else is an offence under Article 57 of the Code of Petty Offences, punishable by up to 30 days’ arrest.

Petty-offence proceedings most often follow an inspection. After the inspection report is prepared and signed, the PIP inspector may summon for questioning the person who, in the inspector’s view, committed the offence. That person becomes a “suspect” and may exercise the right of defence. They do not have to provide explanations or answer the inspector’s questions, and they may use the assistance of counsel.

In most cases, penalty tickets imposed by a PIP inspector may not exceed PLN 2,000. There are exceptions, however, and in some cases the fine may be higher, including:
• for offences described in Article 84 of the Act on the Conditions for Permitting Foreigners to Work in Poland of 20 March 2025 – a ticket of up to PLN 10,000;
• recidivism – where the same perpetrator commits the same offence for the third time within two years – the ticket may reach PLN 5,000.

It is also worth remembering that punishment for an offence against employees’ rights may have further consequences. If the punished person is a management board member, commercial representative or partner of a partnership managing the company’s affairs, the company may be excluded from participating in public tenders. In practice, contracting authorities often include such a reservation, with bidding companies having to declare that there are no circumstances excluding them from the procurement.

Preparing for inspections and ticketing proceedings

During PIP inspections, employers are often represented by people who may potentially be deemed by PIP to be responsible for an offence. For such individuals, the situation is uncomfortable from the outset. On the one hand, they have a duty to cooperate with the inspector during the inspection, provide explanations, documents and information. On the other hand, they know this may work against them. Therefore, already at the initial stage it is worth assessing the risk of the inspector concluding that an offence has been committed. If this risk exists, it is advisable to appoint a person not directly involved in the matter to take part in the inspection.

An employer may (and often should) support its employee in petty-offence proceedings. Decisions that the inspector deems to have breached labour law are often the result of company policy and are “imposed” on employees. In such cases, defending the employee also defends the company’s decisions. The rules referred to earlier do not prohibit the employer from supporting (including financially) the defence of a person accused in petty-offence proceedings.

In addition, after the inspection ends, when the report is known, the risk of PIP continuing the petty-offence proceedings should be assessed. The decision whether the employee or manager should accept a ticket should not be taken hastily. If the employer has arguments to defend its position, it is worth having the case heard in court. Accepting a ticket will be read as an admission of guilt by the individual; the authority can then use this acknowledgement as established fact, which may lead to further consequences.

Read more about Polish HR law – PRO HR Year Book 2025