When Can B2B Be Reclassified as Employment? Lessons from the First GIP Interpretations

GIP Individual Interpretations: Key Takeaways for Management Boards

The first individual interpretations point to three key conclusions:

1. The classification of a working relationship depends on day-to-day operating practices, not the name of the contract.
2. A favourable interpretation provides protection only within the scope of the model that has been accurately described and is actually followed in practice.
3. Reducing risk requires a review of contracts combined with an assessment of managers’ day-to-day activities, the assignment process, availability requirements, substitution arrangements and how deliverables are evaluated and settled.

An analysis of Article 14b of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate indicates that an individual interpretation does not prevent an inspection or a reassessment of the nature of the relationship if the circumstances established by the inspector differ from those presented in the application. The protection therefore depends on the description being accurate, complete and up to date. It does not extend to subsequent practices that deviate from the approved model.

In addition, Article 14b(18) of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate requires issued interpretations to be forwarded without delay to the Social Insurance Institution (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych, ZUS) and the National Revenue Administration (Krajowa Administracja Skarbowa, KAS). We discussed this in the article: Coordinated Action by PIP, ZUS and KAS – B2B Contracts in Poland Under Scrutiny. From an entrepreneur’s perspective, this means that an application does not exist in isolation from other public authorities. The description of the working arrangement should therefore also be consistent with social security and tax records. Furthermore, the Act does not provide for an equivalent of the tacit approval mechanism applicable in tax matters. Consequently, the expiry of the deadline for issuing an interpretation does not mean that the applicant’s position has been accepted.

How to Obtain a GIP Individual Interpretation: Procedure and Business Implications

An application may concern either existing circumstances or a future arrangement, including a proposed B2B model, and must be submitted to the Chief Labour Inspector.
The application should include:

1. The applicant’s identification details.
2. A description of the existing circumstances or future arrangement.
3. The legal provisions covered by the question.
4. The applicant’s position, together with supporting arguments.
5. Proof of payment of the PLN 40 fee.
6. Documents or other evidence supporting the circumstances presented, if available.

The fee is PLN 40 for each separate set of existing circumstances or future arrangement. The interpretation should be issued without undue delay and no later than 30 days after receipt of a complete application. If the application is incomplete, the applicant will be requested to remedy the deficiencies within seven days. No interpretation will be issued regarding circumstances that, on the date of submission, are already being examined as part of an inspection or proceedings conducted by the National Labour Inspectorate or the Social Insurance Institution (ZUS). An interpretation may be appealed to a regional court, subject to a fee of PLN 200.

Once anonymised, individual interpretations are published in the Public Information Bulletin. This is significant for two reasons. First, it allows businesses to monitor the Chief Labour Inspector’s emerging approach, whose initial direction is already becoming apparent, and take it into account when designing working arrangements. Second, as this body of interpretations develops, the expected standard of due diligence for businesses will increase. It will become increasingly difficult to argue convincingly that recurring areas of risk had not been identified.

According to a statement published by the National Labour Inspectorate on 28 August 2026, the Chief Labour Inspector had issued nine individual interpretations concerning the classification of civil-law contracts by 25 August 2026. Only four of them confirmed that the businesses’ positions were correct. At the same time, the National Labour Inspectorate emphasised that an interpretation is based solely on the existing circumstances or future arrangement described in the application, applies to an individual case and protects only the applicant. It is binding on the National Labour Inspectorate only where the way in which the working relationship operates in practice corresponds to that description. A favourable interpretation therefore does not prevent a subsequent inspection. If actual practices reveal features characteristic of an employment relationship, action may be taken to have the arrangement recognised as employment.

How Does Poland’s Chief Labour Inspector Assess B2B and Civil-Law Contracts? 10 Examples

1 Short-Term Task Platform: GIP Finds Features of Temporary Agency Work Despite the Use of an App

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.12.2026.4, a temporary employment agency described a platform through which individuals independently selected short-term assignments in shops, warehouses, manufacturing facilities or stocktaking operations. Once they accepted an assignment, however, they were required to report to a specified place at a specified time and follow the instructions of a store manager, team leader or shift manager. The substitution option was not genuine because a replacement did not take over the same contract but entered into a new one.

GIP concluded that flexibility when selecting an assignment did not eliminate the subordination that arose during its performance. The arrangement was classified as temporary agency work.
For businesses, this means that technology does not eliminate the traditional features of an employment relationship.

2 Geolocation-Based Platform: Subordination Despite the Freedom to Choose Assignments

Case GIP-GPP.50.13.2026.2 concerned a similar model that also used geolocation to confirm the contractor’s presence. Assignments generally lasted up to 12 hours, but once an assignment had been accepted, the contractor was bound by its location, scheduled time and the client’s ongoing instructions. The agency also assumed part of the economic risk by paying the contractor if an assignment was cancelled.

GIP again concluded that the arrangement constituted temporary agency work.
This finding is particularly relevant to employment platforms and casual work models: the freedom to choose an assignment is not sufficient if, after accepting it, the contractor operates like an employee of the user undertaking.

3 Client Acquisition: GIP Accepts a Civil-Law Contract

Interpretation GIP-GPP.50.14.2026.2 concerned a proposed arrangement with individuals responsible for generating sales leads and acquiring clients. The contractors would be free to choose when and where they worked, would not be subject to schedules or ongoing supervision, would mainly use their own equipment and would be permitted to appoint a substitute. The objective was to achieve a business result, rather than remain available for a specified number of hours.

GIP accepted the civil-law model.
This provides important guidance for sales and marketing teams: a company may define the expected outcome, standards and reporting requirements, provided that it does not begin managing the contractor as it would an employee.

4 IT Contractors and Project Managers: B2B Models Accepted

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.6.2026.3, an IT company described two existing models: technology specialists delivering projects and Project Managers coordinating teams. Contractors could accept or reject assignments, independently determine when and where they provided their services, assume responsibility for the outcome and quality of their work, and appoint substitutes. The company set objectives, deadlines, milestones and standards but did not dictate how the work should be performed. 

GIP found both models to be correctly classified. Importantly, project coordination was not equated with exercising an employer’s authority because the Project Managers had no HR management powers. Reporting hours for billing purposes was also not regarded as employee working time records.

5 Driver Transporting Children: Contract of Mandate Challenged

Case GIP-GPP.50.8.2026.7 concerned a proposed contract of mandate with a driver transporting children with disabilities throughout the school year. The driver would use a vehicle belonging to the contracting entity, follow a fixed route at times determined by the school timetable, and have only a limited right to appoint a substitute due to child safeguarding requirements.

GIP concluded that the predominant features were those of an employment relationship: regularity, personal performance of the work, organisational subordination, and the contracting entity’s assumption of costs and risk. The driver’s freedom to determine the order in which the children were collected did not affect this assessment.
For local government bodies and transport organisers, this indicates that a service requiring continuous staffing by a designated individual may call for an employment contract or genuine outsourcing to a professional transport provider.

6 Child Transport Assistants: GIP Identifies an Employment Relationship

Interpretation GIP-GPP.50.8.2026.8 concerned a proposed arrangement with child transport assistants engaged for the school year. They would be responsible for the children’s safety, assist them when boarding and leaving the vehicle, hand them over to schools and parents, and work closely with the driver. These duties would be performed along a fixed route and according to a schedule determined by school hours.

GIP concluded that the seasonal nature of the work did not rule out an employment relationship, while safeguarding duties and formal restrictions on substitution reinforced the requirement for personal performance.
The conclusion for the public sector is clear: safety requirements may be objectively justified, but they do not eliminate organisational subordination.

7 Contracts of Mandate with Students: Flexible Scheduling in Retail and Manufacturing Does Not Rule Out Employment

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.18.2026.2, students declared their own availability and could decline assignments for extended periods. However, once they arrived at a shop or bakery, they performed tasks arising from the business’s current operational needs, using its infrastructure and working under the direction of those responsible for organising the work.

GIP classified the arrangement as an employment relationship. The key issue was not when a student declared their availability, but how they worked during a shift.
This interpretation is particularly important for the retail, hospitality and manufacturing sectors: the financial advantages of engaging students under contracts of mandate will not protect a model in which a contractor performs the same duties as an employee.

8 Bread Delivery Drivers: Contract of Mandate Accepted

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.9.2026.6, drivers were engaged during periods of increased demand or when permanent employees were absent. They selected the days on which they were available, were not required to accept delivery runs or remain on standby, were paid per run, and could appoint a substitute under the contract.

Although the drivers used vehicles belonging to the business, GIP concluded that this single factor did not determine the existence of an employment relationship. The favourable assessment resulted from their genuine freedom to accept assignments and the absence of ongoing managerial control.

Comparing this case with the transportation of children shows that the sector and the equipment used are secondary considerations. What matters is how the relationship between the parties is organised.

9 Hourly B2B Billing: Does a Timesheet Indicate an Employment Relationship? 

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.11.2026.3, a business described a model based on separate work orders. The contractor could reject individual assignments, independently determine when, where and how the services were performed, engage subcontractors, assume responsibility for the outcome, and maintain liability insurance. Fees would be calculated on an hourly basis, but the reports would not be used to monitor attendance. Equipment would be provided for a fee under a rental arrangement.

GIP confirmed the civil-law nature of the relationship. This is important for professional services: an hourly rate, timesheet or client-provided equipment does not in itself establish an employment relationship, provided that it does not form part of a system of employee subordination.

10 Warehouse Work Under Contracts of Mandate: When Do Repetitive Tasks Indicate Employment?

In interpretation GIP-GPP.50.18.2026.5, a business proposed engaging individuals to perform warehouse duties under contracts of mandate. The contractors would be free to accept or reject specific assignments, provide services to other businesses, and would not be required to remain continuously available. However, after accepting an assignment, they would perform repetitive tasks forming part of the warehouse’s operations, within timeframes set by the business, using equipment provided by it and under its organisational supervision.

The Chief Labour Inspector rejected the applicant’s position, concluding that the model predominantly displayed the features of an employment relationship.
This is an important warning for businesses: the freedom to accept assignments is not sufficient to support a civil-law model if, after accepting an assignment, the contractor becomes integrated into an organised work process and is subject to significant organisational subordination.

Common Criteria Shared by the Analysed GIP Interpretations

A comparison of these cases shows that GIP does not base its decisions on a single characteristic or the industry label attached to a particular model. The same factor, such as using the business’s equipment, hourly billing or the freedom to accept assignments, may carry different weight depending on how the working relationship is organised as a whole. Further assessment should therefore focus on the common criteria reflected across all the interpretations.

The material analysed includes the nine interpretations covered by the National Labour Inspectorate’s statement as at 25 August 2026, together with an additional tenth interpretation concerning repetitive warehouse work. A total of ten decisions have been reviewed: four confirming that the applicants’ positions were correct and six in which GIP rejected their positions. Despite differences between the sectors concerned, a consistent assessment method emerges: GIP examines not the label attached to the contract, but the actual balance of independence, managerial control, personal performance and economic risk.

How the Working Relationship Operates in Practice Matters More Than the Contract’s Name

From a management board’s perspective, the key conclusion is straightforward. Classifying a working relationship is not merely a legal or HR matter. It is an operational risk created by how the relationship is managed on a day-to-day basis. A contract may correctly describe an independent contractor, but if a manager sets the contractor’s schedule, issues ongoing instructions, monitors attendance, approves absences and integrates the contractor into the organisational structure in the same way as an employee, the organisation itself shifts the relationship towards employment.

How to Assess Whether a B2B Model Has the Features of an Employment Relationship

The assessment should begin with five questions:

1. Who decides when and where the tasks are performed?
2. Who determines how they are carried out?
3. Can the contractor refuse an assignment or appoint a substitute?
4. Who bears the costs and economic risk?
5. Is payment made for a specific result or for remaining available to work?

The more the answers indicate that the organisation controls the individual contractor, the stronger the grounds for classifying the arrangement as an employment relationship.

GIP does not apply a simple test based on a single criterion. The use of company equipment, hourly billing, participation in project meetings or the setting of deadlines does not, in itself, determine that an employment relationship exists. What matters is how the overall model is structured and the relative weight of factors such as genuine freedom to accept assignments, autonomy over how the work is performed, responsibility for the outcome, economic risk and a genuine right of substitution. It is therefore not enough merely to revise a few contractual clauses or replicate an individual element from a favourable interpretation. The entire process must be analysed, from engaging the contractor and assigning and performing tasks through to billing, absences and termination of the relationship.

Large-scale contractor models require particular attention. Where numerous contractors operate under the same arrangement, a single structural weakness can become a portfolio-wide risk. The management board should know not only the number of B2B contracts and contracts of mandate, but also their total value and duration, their similarity to employee positions, and their potential social security, tax and employment law implications. A practical approach is to classify these models as low, elevated or high risk, while assigning responsible owners, deadlines and reporting requirements for the necessary actions.

It is also important from a management perspective to distinguish between monitoring results and controlling the individual performing the work. An organisation is entitled to require quality, timely delivery, compliance with standards, safety and information security. However, it should not automatically apply mechanisms characteristic of employment relationships to civil-law arrangements. If the business requires continuous presence, personal availability, full integration into the team and ongoing subordination to a manager, the appropriate solution may be an employment contract or genuine outsourcing of the process, rather than further “refining” the wording of the B2B contract.

What to Do After Auditing B2B Contracts and Contracts of Mandate

The analysis should lead to one of three decisions: retain the existing model, change the relevant processes and management practices, or change the contractual basis of the relationship.

The model may be retained if day-to-day practices confirm the contractor’s genuine independence and the organisation can document it. Processes and management practices should be changed where the risk results from operational deviations that can be corrected within a specified period. Changing the basis of the relationship to employment or genuine process outsourcing is appropriate where a fixed schedule, personal performance and ongoing subordination arise from the nature of the tasks themselves. Each decision should have an assigned owner, implementation deadline, evidence of completion and a method for periodic review.

The first GIP interpretations should also change how organisations approach the responsibilities of line managers. These managers most often determine contractors’ working hours, priorities, reporting methods and availability requirements. A contractor management policy should therefore translate legal requirements into straightforward operational rules: what managers may require, how they should assign work and accept deliverables, how refusals or changes to assignments should be documented, and when a change in the model should be reported to HR or the legal department. Without such a standard, a favourable interpretation may lose its value because of day-to-day decisions made at lower levels of the organisation.

For a management board, an individual interpretation should therefore form part of a broader business decision. Before submitting an application, the organisation should answer three questions:

1. Is the model described in the application genuinely followed in practice?
2. Can the organisation demonstrate this with evidence?
3. Is it prepared to maintain these conditions over time?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, the first step should be to audit and correct the process, rather than apply to GIP.

After obtaining an interpretation, the organisation should maintain a record of changes to its contractor model. Any change to availability requirements, task allocation, reporting, substitution, remuneration, tools or supervision should trigger a reassessment of whether actual practices remain consistent with the description submitted to GIP. This makes it possible to identify when a model that was originally accepted begins to evolve towards employee subordination.

Does a GIP Individual Interpretation Guarantee That a B2B Model Is Legal?

The decisions issued to date show that Poland’s National Labour Inspectorate has increasingly precise tools for assessing complex and unconventional working arrangements. The Supreme Court case law cited by GIP reinforces the principle that a relationship is classified based not on the name of the contract or the parties’ declarations, but on its organisational context and the contractor’s actual degree of independence.

Clauses concerning flexibility, organisational freedom or substitution cease to offer protection if they exist only on paper. During an inspection, the authorities will assess how the relationship operates on a day-to-day basis: who makes the decisions, who bears the risk, who controls the process, and whether the contractor is genuinely free to act differently from the organisation’s expectations.

An individual interpretation is binding on the National Labour Inspectorate only within the scope of the existing circumstances or future arrangement described in the application. If the relationship operates differently in practice from the information submitted, it will be assessed based on the actual working arrangements, and the business will not be able to rely effectively on the protection offered by the interpretation.

Ultimately, a business should manage the outcome of the service, not the individual contractor. The greater its control over when, where and how the contractor works, the higher the risk that an employment relationship will be found to exist. If the nature of the tasks objectively requires a fixed schedule, personal performance and close organisational subordination, employment or outsourcing the entire service to an independent professional provider may be more appropriate.

A GIP interpretation is not a certificate of legality. It is an early-warning system that helps identify risk, but it cannot replace responsible management of day-to-day practices.

Sources:

1. Uzasadnienie rządowego projektu ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy oraz niektórych innych ustaw z 19 lutego 2026 r., RPU X, poz. 2250, druk legislacyjny;
2. A. Kucharska, [w:] A. Kucharska, K. Niedzielska, Reforma Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy, Kwadrans HR, 2026.
3. P. Szot (red.), Umowy B2B w praktyce. Aspekty prawne, podatki, ZUS, 2026.
4. Rządowy projekt ustawy o zmianie ustawy o Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy oraz niektórych innych ustaw z dnia  19 lutego 2026 r. (RPU X, poz. 2250), druk legislacyjny.
5. Interpretacje indywidualne - Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy
6. Pierwsze efekty kontroli zasadności wyboru umowy cywilnoprawnej - Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy