Poland Workplace Bullying Law 2026: Duties and Deadlines

“What exactly do we have to change?”

An HR director at a 40-person company faces three questions from the board: do we need a new policy, must we appoint an anti-bullying committee, and are training courses now compulsory? Poland's amended Labour Code took effect on 5 November 2026. It simplifies the legal definition of mobbing and spells out an employer's obligation to prevent it systematically. It does not require every company to produce the same document or set up the same committee. What matters is whether employees can report concerns safely, whether cases can be investigated impartially and whether the organisation can prevent retaliation. Poland's National Labour Inspectorate emphasises prevention, clear responsibility for complaints, effective responses and reviewing what actually works. The distinction HR needs to make is between a statutory obligation and a sensible way to meet it. This article explains Polish law; employers operating elsewhere must also check the rules that apply locally.

A simpler definition: persistent, not necessarily long-lasting

Previously, Polish law described mobbing as persistent and prolonged harassment or intimidation, together with further requirements concerning its purpose or effects. The amending Act of 19 June 2026 now uses a shorter definition: conduct involving the persistent harassment of an employee. Persistent means recurring, repeated or continuous; a one-off incident does not meet this definition, even if it violates personal rights or calls for another legal remedy. The legislation lists examples, including humiliation, intimidation, unjustified criticism, obstructing work or communication and isolating someone from a team. The list is open, and the conduct must still amount to persistent harassment. A perpetrator can be a manager, colleague, subordinate, contractor or group, while the employee's situation and the nature of the conduct must be considered individually. A perpetrator's intention to cause harm is not an essential element. Equally important, legitimate criticism of work, expressed appropriately, is not mobbing.

The revised rules allow an affected employee to claim compensation for non-material harm of at least six times the statutory minimum monthly wage: PLN 28,836 in 2026 and PLN 29,700 from January 2027. A diagnosed deterioration in health or termination of employment is not a prerequisite for that new claim. Conduct that began before 5 November but continued after the effective date may fall under the new rules. There is an important limit: although a person working under a civil-law contract may perpetrate mobbing, the specific Labour Code claim protects employees. Someone working on another contract may have remedies under personal-rights or criminal law, or may dispute the classification of their working relationship. The government's reasoning in parliamentary paper 2289 explains why the employee-only scope was retained. For the operative wording, consult the official published Act.

Employer duties and the deadline of 5 May 2027

Every employer, irrespective of headcount, must respond to mobbing systematically: prevent it, detect it, react appropriately, remedy its consequences and support affected people. Organisations with at least ten employees must also establish rules, procedures and the frequency of action in four areas: respect for dignity and other personal rights, equal treatment, prevention of discrimination and prevention of mobbing. Those provisions may appear in a collective agreement, workplace rules or a separate internal regulation. If existing documents already meet the requirements, starting again is unnecessary. Otherwise the necessary arrangements must be in place by 5 May 2027. The rules governing agreement with trade unions or employee representatives provide a 30-day consultation mechanism; a newly announced regulation normally becomes effective two weeks after staff are informed.

The Act does not prescribe a formal anti-bullying committee, a dedicated officer or a particular training programme. Yet someone must be able to receive reports and conduct a credible investigation. A useful internal policy sets out who is covered, examples of prohibited and legitimate behaviour, prevention activities and their frequency, confidential reporting routes that can bypass a direct supervisor, impartial investigators, time limits, the rights of both parties, protection against retaliation and help after the investigation. Two reporting channels, independent expertise, periodic training and an annual review are good practice rather than separately mandated statutory formats. A realistic schedule is to draft the policy now, consult employees in good time, announce the final wording early in 2027 and leave a margin before the May deadline. An Inspectorate report found that among employers inspected following complaints, 61% had an anti-mobbing policy, 59% had a procedure and 31% had trained management. These are findings about that inspected group, not about all Polish businesses.

Who is liable, and what if the allegation is disputed?

The employee brings a Labour Code mobbing claim against the employer, even when the alleged behaviour came from another worker. A policy on the intranet or a signed training register does not automatically prove compliance: prevention, investigation and remedial measures must work in practice. The amendment also allows an employer that has paid compensation to seek appropriate reimbursement from the perpetrator, taking account of each party's share of fault. Disciplinary consequences for an employee alleged to have bullied someone depend on established facts and the applicable legal grounds. A complaint is not proof of guilt. Conversely, an unsubstantiated complaint is not automatically a maliciously false accusation. Both the reporting person and witnesses need protection from retaliation, within the scope of the relevant legal provisions and the circumstances. Because the Polish evidential framework for mobbing differs from the rules for some discrimination claims, HR should keep a careful record of the original report, interviews, documents, findings and decisions without prejudging the outcome.

What employees can do: evidence, claims and common misconceptions

If you are concerned about workplace bullying in Poland, record dates, exact words, repeated actions, witnesses, emails and messages as early as possible. Use the employer's reporting route where it is safe to do so and obtain independent advice when needed. In court, the employee generally bears the burden of establishing the circumstances of a mobbing claim; discrimination linked to a protected characteristic can involve different evidential rules. Under the revised Code, a person affected by mobbing may seek statutory compensation for non-material harm of at least six times the minimum wage or damages. The general limitation period for employment claims is three years, although the starting point depends on the type of claim. Employees are generally exempt from the initial court filing fee; that does not guarantee that proceedings will involve no other costs. Check the law before recording conversations or relying on recordings as evidence. Nor does using the word “mobbing” automatically bring a report within Poland's separate whistleblower legislation: eligibility depends on what was reported. A complaint made in good faith that cannot be proved must be distinguished from deliberate fabrication. The Labour Inspectorate may examine an employer's compliance, while the courts determine individual mobbing claims. An employee need not wait for a legal verdict before seeking support for their wellbeing.

Why communication is at the heart of the amendment

The revised Code refers to communication in several important ways. Employers must protect dignity and personal rights, including in appropriate communication in the workplace. Obstructing contact with colleagues can form part of persistent harassment, while justified criticism delivered appropriately is expressly excluded from the definition of mobbing. These distinctions matter in ordinary meetings about mistakes, deadlines, delegated work and organisational change. Giving critical feedback is permitted; whether that feedback is justified, how it is expressed and whether harmful behaviour forms a pattern all matter. The statute calls for an individual assessment of the conduct and the employee's circumstances. In practice, managers can ask how someone prefers to receive information and what adjustments might help, including when communication differences are linked to neurodivergence. Such differences do not excuse repeated harassment and cannot be used to dismiss a complaint as “oversensitivity”. The law does not name a mandatory communication course, but regular opportunities to practise difficult conversations are one way to support prevention.

What HR and managers should do now

Start by auditing what already exists. Can employees report a concern without approaching the person they complain about? Who investigates, how is independence protected, what interim steps are available and how are the parties kept informed? At organisations with ten or more employees, check whether the required rules and frequency of preventive measures are set out in an appropriate internal instrument by 5 May 2027. Follow the statutory consultation and notification steps when a new regulation is needed. A committee, outside investigator, two or more reporting routes and periodic training can be sensible choices, but should not be presented as universal requirements written into the Act. Document decisions, secure confidential information, prevent retaliation and provide support after a case is closed. If an individual reports an incident, encourage a factual account rather than demanding certainty that the legal label “mobbing” applies. For more on the distinction, see how to tell a workplace conflict from bullying.

Poland's reform simplifies the legal definition of bullying and spells out employers' responsibility to prevent it systematically. Businesses should review internal rules, complaint channels and how concerns are handled. Everyday conversations matter just as much: criticism needs a factual basis and an appropriate form, and managers benefit from practising difficult interactions.

Empatyzer: putting new workplace rules into everyday practice

HR is about to announce a new anti-bullying policy. With Em, the team can draft a message that explains why the rules matter and what they mean for daily work. Managers can then turn to Em before real conversations, whether about a late task, a difficult performance review or an employee concern. Rather than improvising when emotions run high, they can rehearse an opening, useful questions and clear expectations. Twice-weekly micro-lessons reinforce good habits, while the leadership-style view highlights areas worth working on. HR can see aggregated usage statistics without access to private conversations. That makes the new standards part of everyday working life.