Expert advice

Workplace Mobbing Claims in Poland: Employer Liability and Defence

22.09.2026

Until 4 November 2026, mobbing is defined under Article 94³ § 2 of the Polish Labour Code as actions or conduct concerning an employee or directed against an employee that involve persistent and long-lasting harassment or intimidation. Such conduct must result in a lowered assessment of the employee’s professional suitability, or aim at or result in humiliation, ridicule, isolation or elimination from the team [1]. From 5 November 2026, a new, simpler definition and new employer obligations will apply, as explained below [5].

For businesses, a workplace bullying claim in Poland can create financial exposure, disrupt management operations and affect employer reputation. The legal assessment is fact-specific. Not every workplace conflict, critical performance review or unpleasant management decision amounts to mobbing.

Mobbing in Poland: the employer’s statutory duty and liability risk

Under Article 94³ § 1 of the Labour Code, every employer is required to counteract mobbing. This is an independent statutory obligation. It applies regardless of the company’s size, sector or whether the alleged conduct was committed by a manager, colleague or another person acting within the workplace structure.

An employer may face statutory liability if mobbing occurred. The employee’s statutory claims are not conditional on proving that the employer failed to implement an anti-mobbing procedure or otherwise acted culpably. In practice, however, courts may examine not only the behaviour of the alleged perpetrator but also the employer’s preventive measures and response to a complaint. Relevant issues include whether the employer had implemented an anti-mobbing procedure, whether employees knew how to report concerns, and whether complaints were investigated objectively and without delay.

The employer’s obligation does not mean that every allegation automatically results in liability. The employee must establish the factual circumstances supporting the statutory definition of mobbing; showing that the employer’s actions were unlawful is not enough without demonstrating their purpose and effects [3]. However, a passive response to a credible complaint can materially increase litigation and reputational risk.

When does conduct meet the definition of workplace bullying in Poland?

Polish courts assess mobbing objectively, taking account of the circumstances of the particular workplace, rather than relying solely on the employee’s subjective perception [4]. The claimant must generally show that the conduct was persistent and long-lasting, had the required nature and effects, and was linked to the employment relationship.

Three important exceptions and limitations should be distinguished carefully:

A single incident is usually not mobbing. One insult, conflict or improper management decision may be unlawful or justify another employment-law claim, but it will not normally meet the requirement of persistent and long-lasting conduct.
Legitimate management is not automatically mobbing. Lawful performance monitoring, justified criticism, allocation of work, organisational changes or disciplinary measures do not constitute mobbing merely because an employee considers them stressful or unfair.
Mobbing and discrimination are different legal concepts. Discrimination requires unfavourable treatment connected with a protected characteristic, such as sex, age, disability, nationality, religion or sexual orientation. Mobbing under Article 94³ of the Labour Code does not require such a connection [1].

These categories may overlap in a particular case. For example, repeated humiliation connected with an employee’s nationality may support both a mobbing claim and a discrimination claim. The legal basis, evidentiary rules and remedies may nevertheless differ.

Mobbing vs discrimination in Poland: why correct classification matters

Discrimination claims are governed principally by Articles 18^3a to 18^3e of the Labour Code. Once an employee presents facts allowing discrimination to be presumed, the employer must demonstrate that it acted on objective grounds. This differs from a mobbing claim, where the employee must prove the elements of mobbing, including persistence and duration.

Correct classification affects litigation strategy. A claim described internally as “mobbing” may actually concern unequal pay, refusal of promotion, harassment related to a protected characteristic or retaliation after a complaint. Employers should therefore avoid treating every interpersonal dispute under one generic procedure without first identifying the potential legal basis. From 5 November 2026, a court will not be able to dismiss a claim for redress or damages solely because the employee relied on the wrong basis among mobbing, discrimination and infringement of personal rights, if the established facts support another of these claims [5].

Mobbing compensation under the Labour Code: available employee claims

Under the rules applicable until 4 November 2026, Article 94³ § 3 of the Labour Code provides that an employee whose health has deteriorated as a result of mobbing may claim an appropriate monetary redress for non-pecuniary harm suffered. Medical documentation, psychological or psychiatric records, witness testimony and expert evidence may be relevant in establishing both the health impact and causation.

Under Article 94³ § 4, an employee who has experienced mobbing, or who terminated the employment contract because of mobbing, may seek compensation of no less than the statutory minimum remuneration for work. Where the employee terminates the employment contract because of mobbing, the written declaration terminating employment must state mobbing as the reason for termination, pursuant to Article 94³ § 5 [1].

Depending on the facts, additional claims may arise under other provisions, including claims for discrimination, infringement of personal rights or unlawful termination. Each basis requires separate analysis. A medical condition alone does not prove that mobbing occurred, and a difficult workplace atmosphere alone does not prove health damage caused by mobbing.

Mobbing law reform in Poland from 5 November 2026

The Act of 19 June 2026 amending the Labour Code and the Code of Civil Procedure was published on 4 August 2026 and enters into force on 5 November 2026 [5]. Until 4 November 2026, the rules described above continue to apply. From 5 November 2026, the key changes for employers are:

New definition. Mobbing will mean conduct consisting of persistent harassment of an employee. Persistence means conduct that is repeated, recurring or continuous. The separate requirement of long duration is removed, and it will no longer be necessary to prove the perpetrator’s intention or a specific effect. Incidental conduct is expressly excluded, even if it infringes personal rights.
Examples and sources of mobbing. The Labour Code will list examples such as humiliation, intimidation, unjustified criticism, ridicule, obstructing work and isolating an employee from the team. Mobbing may come from the employer, a manager, a colleague, a subordinate or a person working under a civil-law contract. Ordering or encouraging such conduct will also constitute mobbing.
Legitimate management protected. Justified and properly expressed conduct, in particular holding an employee accountable for assigned work or criticising that work, will not constitute mobbing.
Higher compensation. An employee who experienced mobbing may claim redress of at least six times the minimum wage (PLN 28,836 at the 2026 minimum wage of PLN 4,806) or damages. Health deterioration will no longer be a condition of redress.
Recourse against the perpetrator. An employer that pays redress or damages may seek partial reimbursement from the person responsible for the mobbing, in proportion to that person’s degree of fault.
Systematic prevention. Employers must systematically counteract mobbing through prevention, detection, appropriate response, corrective action and support for affected persons. Employers with at least 10 employees must set out the rules, procedures and frequency of these activities in a collective agreement, work regulations or separate regulations, and have until 5 May 2027 to do so.
Protection against retaliation. Exercising rights connected with a breach of employment law, or supporting another employee in doing so, cannot justify unfavourable treatment, including termination of employment.

The new Labour Code provisions will also apply to persistent harassment that began before 5 November 2026 and continued after that date. In practice, anti-mobbing documentation prepared now should already reflect the new definition and the three-stage model of prevention, detection and remediation.

Evidence in a mobbing lawsuit

Evidence in mobbing litigation often determines the outcome. Employees may rely on emails, instant messages, meeting notes, calendars, medical records, internal complaints and witness testimony. Employers should preserve relevant records once a complaint is raised and avoid informal deletion of communications or retaliatory actions against witnesses.

Witness evidence can be particularly important but may be affected by team loyalties or fear of professional consequences. Contemporaneous documentation is therefore valuable. Managers should document performance concerns clearly, factually and consistently. Vague allegations of poor attitude or insufficient engagement can be interpreted unfavourably if they are not supported by objective criteria. After 5 November 2026, medical evidence will remain relevant for the extent of the harm, even though health deterioration will no longer be a condition of redress.

Anti-mobbing procedure for employers in Poland: prevention and internal investigations

An anti-mobbing procedure should be tailored to the organisation, not copied mechanically from a template. At a minimum, it should define prohibited conduct, reporting channels, confidentiality rules, protection against retaliation, investigation stages and possible corrective measures [2]. For employers with at least 10 employees, such rules will become a statutory requirement after the reform takes effect [5]. The procedure works best as part of a broader effort to build the organisation’s corporate culture in Poland.

An anti-mobbing committee investigation should be impartial and properly documented. Committee members should have no personal or reporting-line conflict with the parties. The process should give both the complainant and the accused person a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and respond to allegations.

Appropriate interim measures may include separating reporting lines, changing work arrangements or instructing parties to avoid direct contact where necessary. Such measures should not improperly disadvantage the complainant or imply that allegations have already been proven.

Employer defence and crisis management

Effective defence begins before litigation. Although preventive measures do not by themselves exclude statutory liability if mobbing is proven, the employer should demonstrate real preventive action, trained managers, accessible reporting mechanisms and an evidence-based response to complaints. A credible investigation cannot be limited to collecting written statements. It should assess chronology, workplace context, witness credibility and objective records.

Where misconduct is confirmed, proportionate action may include management intervention, training, reassignment, disciplinary measures or termination of employment, depending on the facts and applicable procedures. Where allegations are unsubstantiated, the employer should still consider whether team conflict, communication failures or management practices require correction.

This is informational material, not legal advice. For a fact-specific assessment of an internal complaint, evidence strategy or employment dispute, contact the Kopeć & Zaborowski legal team.

FAQ – Workplace Mobbing Claims in Poland

Does every workplace conflict qualify as mobbing in Poland?

No. Until 4 November 2026, mobbing requires persistent and long-lasting harassment or intimidation and the statutory effects described in Article 94³ § 2 of the Labour Code. From 5 November 2026, it requires persistent harassment, meaning repeated, recurring or continuous conduct. An isolated conflict or one-off inappropriate comment will not usually meet either threshold.

Can an employer be liable for mobbing committed by a manager?

Yes. The employer has a statutory duty to counteract mobbing and may be liable for statutory mobbing claims where mobbing is established. Conduct by managers is particularly significant because they act within the employer’s organisational structure.

Is an anti-mobbing procedure mandatory in Poland?

Until 4 November 2026, the Labour Code requires employers to counteract mobbing but does not prescribe one mandatory procedural model. From 5 November 2026, employers with at least 10 employees must set out anti-mobbing rules, procedures and their frequency in a collective agreement, work regulations or separate regulations, with a deadline of 5 May 2027.

What evidence is useful in a mobbing lawsuit?

Useful evidence may include emails, messages, meeting records, witness testimony, internal complaints, performance documentation and medical evidence where health damage is claimed.

Can an employee claim compensation without resigning?

Yes. Under Article 94³ § 4, an employee who has experienced mobbing may seek compensation even without terminating the employment contract. From 5 November 2026, an employee who experienced mobbing may claim redress of at least six times the minimum wage, or damages, without having to prove health deterioration.

What is the difference between mobbing and discrimination?

Discrimination concerns unequal treatment connected with a legally protected characteristic. Mobbing concerns persistent harassment and does not require a protected characteristic to be involved.

What changes in Polish mobbing law from 5 November 2026?

The amendment introduces a simpler definition based on persistent harassment, excludes incidental conduct, protects legitimate management, raises minimum redress to six times the minimum wage, gives employers recourse against perpetrators and requires systematic prevention, with formal internal rules for employers with at least 10 employees.