First interpretations of the Chief Labour Inspector. What can determine that B2B cooperation is an employment relationship?

The Chief Labour Inspector has issued the first B2B interpretations. Find out which models passed review and what actually determines employment status.

The reform of the National Labour Inspectorate has been in force since 8 July 2026. For the first few weeks the discussion was based on predictions, since no one knew how the authority would apply its new powers. That has just changed. The Chief Labour Inspector has begun issuing individual interpretations, and their anonymised versions are being published in the Public Information Bulletin. For the first time, instead of speculation, we have the positions of an authority that has a real instrument for reclassifying contracts.

How does the assessment of cooperation take place?

The basis is Article 14b of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate. At the request of the employing entity, the Chief Labour Inspector (GIP) determines whether the legal relationship presented in the application constitutes an employment relationship within the meaning of Article 22 § 1 of the Labour Code. The application may concern both cooperation already in progress and a model that is only being planned (future state). The fee is PLN 40, and the authority issues a ruling without undue delay, no later than within 30 days of receiving the complete application.

What is crucial for the entire market, however, is what happens to an interpretation once it has been issued. It goes to ZUS and the National Revenue Administration, and after the applicant's identifying data has been removed it is published in the BIP. This creates a publicly available collection of positions on the applications considered. By 31 August 2026, ten interpretations had been issued, with the applicant's position found to be lawful in four cases. Analysis of the interpretations published to date allows first conclusions to be drawn about the GIP's position.

Which cooperation models passed the review?

From the perspective of the specialist services market, the most significant is the interpretation concerning the IT sector. A company cooperated with persons running a business on the basis of framework contracts, and individual services were performed on the basis of separate orders specifying the scope of work and the settlement method. The authority accepted this model, pointing to the possibility of refusing an order, the absence of a guarantee of continuity of cooperation, contractual liability for the result, the possibility of providing services to other entities, the absence of remuneration for mere readiness to work, and the service recipient bearing business risk.

It is worth noting a detail that is significant for project-based firms: the interpretation also covered Project Managers operating under the B2B formula. The authority accepted such a model on condition that the contractor does not perform an employer function, i.e. does not decide on hiring, dismissals or remuneration. Coordinating a project or leading a project team does not therefore in itself determine that an employment relationship exists.

Also accepted was a cooperation model involving persons engaged in acquiring clients and arranging sales meetings. The contractors themselves chose their place of work, organised their time, used their own tools and decided on their method of working, while the contracting party set goals without controlling the means of achieving them. The genuine possibility of substitution and settlement for results rather than attendance were also significant. This interpretation shows that a contract for services can also function in the context of long-term cooperation.

What was challenged?

• Work via an internet platform. The contractors themselves decided which task to accept, but after accepting it they had to appear at a specific place and time and worked under the supervision of the agency's client. The authority found that freedom of choice of assignment does not eliminate the subordination that arises after its acceptance.
• Transport of children on a fixed route and supervision during school runs. The decisive factors were the continuous and repetitive nature of the work throughout the school year, the fixed schedule, the infrastructure provided by the contracting party and the absence of freedom of substitution.
• Students performing the duties of sales staff and production workers. The model appeared flexible, since the students themselves set their availability, could suspend cooperation during exam sessions and were not subject to a minimum number of hours. However, a different element was decisive: once work began, the entrepreneur specified the scope of current duties on each occasion, adapting them to the needs of the shop or production facility.

The authority also challenged sham substitution rights. The formal possibility of passing a task to another person led in practice to the termination of one contract and the conclusion of a new one with a different contractor, which could not be recognised as genuine substitution.

What does this mean for a contract audit?

The conclusion is one and consistently recurs in every ruling: the subject of the assessment is the practice of performing the contract, not its content or the parties' assumptions about the nature of their cooperation. The best-drafted autonomy clause will not protect cooperation in which the contractor functions as a salaried employee. Conversely: a model may be accepted despite the long duration of the cooperation and even in specific cases of using the contracting party's equipment, if its organisation remains independent.

For this reason, a review cannot be limited to draft documents. The content of the contract must be compared with what happens in the organisation on a daily basis, and in particular it is necessary to establish:

• who assigns tasks to the contractor and how, and whether the scope of duties is determined on an ongoing basis by the contracting party,
• whether the contractor has a genuine, and not merely contractually stated, possibility of refusing an assignment,
• how the right of substitution functions in practice,
• whether settlement concerns the result or rather the time spent in readiness,
• whether the contractor bears business risk and can provide services to other entities,
• whether the onboarding, operational communication and management practices create a subordination that is absent from the contract.

Is it worth applying for an interpretation?

The instrument has two advantages. It is inexpensive, and compliance with the interpretation protects against administrative and financial sanctions and penalties to the extent that the entity acted in accordance with its content. The interpretation is binding on the PIP authorities and can only be changed or revoked in the event of a change in the circumstances of the case.

It does, however, have three limitations that must be known before submitting an application. First, the protection covers the described factual state, not the name of the contract. The issuance of an interpretation does not exclude an assessment of the real nature of the legal relationship in the course of an inspection, if the established facts turn out to be different from those presented in the application. Second, interpretations are not issued regarding elements of the factual state that, on the date the application is submitted, are already the subject of ongoing PIP or ZUS proceedings — so the instrument works preventively, not as a rescue measure. Third, the ruling goes to ZUS and KAS, which in the event of an unfavourable assessment means a signal to two further authorities.

The practical conclusion is that an application is worth preceding with a thorough examination of actual practice and the activities performed. An interpretation based on a description that diverges from the factual state will not only fail to protect, but may worsen the situation in the event of an inspection.

How much time is left?

The Act provided for a twelve-month window during which voluntarily bringing the employment situation into compliance with the law by concluding an employment contract excludes liability for a petty offence under Article 281 § 1 point 1 of the Labour Code. Counted from the entry of the reform into force, this window closes in July 2027. For companies which, after a review, find that part of their cooperation would not hold up under an inspection, this is the moment to put their situation in order on their own terms, rather than on terms dictated by an authority's decision.

The first interpretations do not herald the elimination of B2B cooperation or contracts for services. They do show, however, that classification is determined by organisational details that are easy to overlook when limiting oneself solely to reading the contract itself: the way tasks are assigned, the genuine possibility of refusing an assignment and substitution, and whether settlement concerns results or attendance.