Converting Civil-Law Contracts and B2B into Employment - PIP Criteria

Over 600 conversion orders - the new PIP powers in practice

The National Labour Inspectorate (PIP) is making use of its new powers, and doing so intensively. According to the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, in the first three months of PIP operating under the new rules inspectors issued as many as 607 orders converting a contract of mandate or a B2B contract into an employment contract. This is a clear signal for business owners - the form of employment is now subject to far more effective verification than ever before.

At the same time, the Chief Labour Inspector (GIP) is issuing individual interpretations that specify when a contract of mandate or B2B arrangement is permissible and when an employment contract is required. By the end of September 2026, 19 such interpretations had been published. The most recent concern, among others, a language school, a car dealer, a doctor, a home carer, a legal adviser and an IT specialist.

It is worth examining these interpretations closely, because they reveal a consistent picture of the criteria the inspectorate applies. For companies working with contractors and mandate-contract workers, this is essential reading.

Employment, mandate contract or B2B? The key GIP criteria

An analysis of all 19 GIP interpretations makes it possible to identify several decisive factors that determine how a contract is classified. GIP does not rely solely on the formal wording of the contract - it examines how the work is actually performed. These are the most important criteria:

• Employee subordination - whether the contractor is subject to day-to-day direction and instructions as to the manner, time and place of work. This criterion is absolutely crucial - it appears in every interpretation.
• Organisational independence - whether the contractor decides on the methods, order and manner of carrying out tasks, or acts according to the instructions of the client.
• Right of substitution - whether the contractor can entrust the task to another person. Personal performance points towards an employment relationship, but GIP examines whether the right of substitution is genuine rather than nominal.
• Business risk - whether it is borne by the contractor (like an independent business owner) or by the client (like an employer).
• Nature of the cooperation - diligent performance vs. achieving a specific result. Payment based on results brings the relationship closer to a civil-law contract.
• Tools and infrastructure - who provides them and whether the contractor uses their own resources.

Importantly, GIP bases its position on the case law of the ordinary courts and the Supreme Court. Before the reform, it was the courts that resolved such disputes - now the inspectorate applies the criteria they developed already at the inspection stage.

Employment contract - cases where GIP leaves no doubt

In as many as 8 of the 19 interpretations, GIP found that an employment contract was the correct form. These situations are worth analysing, as they form a clear pattern.

Temporary work agencies

Two interpretations concerning agencies (ref. GIP-GPP.50.12.2026.4 and GIP-GPP.50.13.2026.2) show that even the ability to refuse an assignment does not protect against the finding of an employment relationship. What matters is what happens after the task is accepted - if the contractor must appear at a specific place and time and work under supervision, this amounts to employee subordination. GIP stressed that even one-day tasks may be performed within an employment relationship.

Bakery, warehouse, waiter - repetition and rotas

Students working in a bakery (ref. GIP-GPP.50.18.2026.2), a warehouse worker (ref. GIP-GPP5180720265) and a seasonal waiter (ref. GIP-GPP.5180.3.2026.3) - in all these cases GIP found that work according to a rota, at the client's premises and on the client's equipment, means organisational subordination. It makes no difference that the parties prefer a mandate contract or that the work is seasonal or irregular.

Hairdresser in a salon and language school administrator

The interpretation concerning hairdressers (ref. GIP-GPP.5180.5.2026.3) is particularly instructive. Although the hairdresser was to indicate available hours, the salon owner controlled the entire process - from the price list and bookings to brand standards. GIP stated outright: the hairdresser did not act towards the client as an independent organiser of the service, but worked within the structure of the business. The same applied to the language school administrator - a certain degree of independence in an administrative role is standard and does not indicate an absence of subordination.

B2B and mandate contracts - when does GIP confirm they are permissible?

In 11 interpretations, GIP accepted the form of a B2B contract or contract of mandate. These cases also form a clear pattern - and it is worth knowing it in order to structure the cooperation correctly.

B2B contract found to be correct

IT company and contractors (ref. GIP-GPP.50.6.2026.3) - the contractors could refuse an order, were not subject to direction, had no set working schedule and bore business risk. IT specialist building a system (ref. GIP-GPP.5180.14.2026.4) - work divided into stages with payment for results, freedom as to methods and place, the possibility of using other persons. Legal adviser (ref. GIP-GPP.50.15.2026.6) - full freedom as to methods, hours and place, paid on results, subject to contractual penalties. Car dealer and database analyst (ref. GIP-GPP.5180.6.2026.8) - B2B scope separate from employee duties, no day-to-day instructions, possibility of subcontracting. Doctor who is a partner in the company (ref. GIP-GPP.50.16.2026.5) - independent professional, member of the management board, organisational independence.

Contract of mandate found to be correct

Obtaining sales leads (ref. GIP-GPP.50.14.2026.2) - the contractors themselves decided on place and time, used their own tools and were paid on results. Bakery drivers (ref. GIP-GPP.50.9.2026.6) - the drivers decided whether to accept an assignment, could nominate a substitute and determined their own availability. Carers of elderly people in Germany (ref. GIP-GPP.5180.12.2026.7 and GIP-GPP.5180.13.2026.7) - no subordination, the carer decides on the daily plan, bears full civil liability and provides services to the persons in their care, not to the company.

What should business owners working with contractors do?

The GIP interpretations form a consistent doctrine. For a contract of mandate or B2B contract to be safe, the cooperation should meet several conditions at the same time:

1. No subordination - the contractor must not be subject to day-to-day instructions as to the manner, time and place of work.
2. Genuine autonomy - freedom in choosing methods and organising time, and the ability to refuse an assignment.
3. Risk on the contractor's side - responsibility for the result, contractual penalties, own third-party liability insurance.
4. Right of substitution - a real, not merely formal, option to entrust the task to another person.
5. Separation from employment - if the same person is also an employee, the B2B scope must be clearly different.

If even some of these criteria are not met, the risk of reclassification rises significantly. And the consequences can be serious - from the need to conclude an employment contract with retroactive effect, through the assessment of Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) contributions, to liability for offences.

For business owners who work with B2B contractors and want to verify how safe their contracts are, it is worth considering a professional audit of the employment structure. A properly planned form of cooperation - consistent with GIP criteria and case law - generally allows you to avoid the risk of reclassification while retaining the benefits of flexible forms of employment.

Need certainty that your contracts are safe?

607 conversion orders in three months and 19 GIP interpretations clearly show the direction in which labour inspectorate practice is heading. Business owners who base their cooperation on mandate contracts and B2B contracts should verify as soon as possible whether the actual model of cooperation matches the legal form of the contract.

The Global Accounting team offers comprehensive HR and payroll services and advice on correctly structuring forms of employment. If you want to check whether your contracts meet the criteria applied by PIP - take advantage of a free consultation. Call +48 505 684 412 or write to [email protected].