Mandate contracts and B2B under PIP scrutiny. What do the first seven GIP interpretations tell us?

The first interpretations issued by the Chief Labour Inspector confirm that the classification of a cooperation arrangement is not determined by the name given to the contract. What matters is how the work is actually organised and performed – in particular the degree of subordination, the contractor's independence and the allocation of business risk.

Since 8 July 2026, PIP – the Polish National Labour Inspectorate – has had new powers to assess civil-law cooperation models and business-to-business (B2B) cooperation between entrepreneurs. One of the tools introduced by this change is individual interpretations issued by the GIP – the Chief Labour Inspector – setting out the authority's position on a specific set of facts described by the applicant, assessing whether the arrangement presented corresponds to a civil-law contract or rather displays the features of an employment relationship.

For a business, this is a change with very practical implications. The classification of a cooperation arrangement affects not only employment law, but also tax settlements, social insurance and the way internal processes are organised. The first rulings show clearly that the name of the contract and the parties' declared intent do not replace an analysis of how the obligations are actually performed.

This does not mean that every civil-law contract will automatically be converted into an employment contract. Mandate contracts and B2B contracts remain permissible forms of cooperation. What changes is the burden of proof resting on the business: it must be able to defend not only the wording of the document, but the entire actual model of its performance.

What do the first GIP interpretations show?

Below we discuss each of the seven interpretations using the same structure: the facts, the way the cooperation was organised, the decisive factors, the GIP's position, and the practical conclusion for businesses.

First interpretation: choosing a task through a platform was not enough

The facts

The application concerned a model used by a temporary employment agency. Contractors were to choose tasks made available on an online platform themselves – with no top-down allocation and no obligation to accept a given assignment.

How the cooperation was organised

The freedom ended, however, the moment a task was accepted. Once it was accepted, the contractor had to:

• appear at a specified place;
• perform the work at a specified time;
• follow the instructions given;
• be supervised by the user employer.

The model also provided for a right of substitution, but this was illusory. Rather than the task actually being performed by a substitute, one contract would in practice be terminated and a new contract concluded with a different person.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

The authority noted that subordination may exist towards the entity for which the work is actually performed, not only towards the formal party to the contract. The ability to choose a task did not offset the conditions applying once it had been accepted.

Second interpretation: freedom before starting a task versus subordination during work

The facts

The second case concerned an existing cooperation with a person concluding successive assignments via a platform. The contractor could choose both tasks and the clients for whom they were carried out.

How the cooperation was organised

Once an assignment was accepted, the work was carried out:

• at a place designated by the client;
• at a specified time;
• under supervision;
• in accordance with instructions given;
• with an obligation to carry out current orders.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

The key issue turned out to be the distinction between two phases of the cooperation. Freedom to choose a task relates to the period preceding its performance, whereas the assessment of the nature of the relationship is based primarily on what happens during the performance of duties. The lack of independence during performance outweighed the earlier freedom of choice.

Third interpretation: acquiring clients under a mandate contract

The facts

The third interpretation is an example of a model accepted as a mandate contract. Contractors were engaged in acquiring clients – their output included, among other things, obtaining leads, arranging meetings and closing new clients.

How the cooperation was organised

The assessment was determined by the combination of the following elements:

• genuine independence of the contractors;
• no imposed place of work;
• independent organisation of working time;
• no ongoing management;
• no binding instructions as to how the work should be carried out;
• a genuine ability to use a substitute;
• mainly using the contractor's own tools;
• remuneration linked to business results.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

The model resembled an independent service rather than work performed within the ordering party's organisational structure. Remuneration related to results, not to availability.

Fourth interpretation: IT contractors and a correctly structured B2B model

The facts

The fourth interpretation concerned IT contractors cooperating under a B2B model – that is, cooperation between businesses. It also covered contractors performing the role of coordinators and project managers.

How the cooperation was organised

The model was based on the following assumptions:

• services were performed on the basis of separate orders;
• the contractor could decline to accept an order;
• no volume of orders was guaranteed;
• no continuity of cooperation was ensured;
• the contractor was not subject to ongoing management;
• no employee-style working-time schedule applied;
• services could be performed within a broad range of hours;
• work could be carried out remotely or at the place indicated in the order;
• the contractor bore business risk and liability for performance of the obligation.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

What mattered was that the independence was genuine and that responsibility for the result rested with the contractor. This does not mean, however, that the IT sector or a managerial-type position in itself justifies a B2B model – the specific way the cooperation was organised was what was assessed.

Fifth interpretation: a driver transporting children

The facts

The fifth case concerned a driver providing transport for children on behalf of an entity organising the transport.

How the cooperation was organised

The picture of the cooperation was made up of the following elements:

• the transport ran along the same route;
• it was provided throughout the school year;
• the work was performed at fixed hours;
• the driver used a vehicle belonging to the ordering party;
• the driver remained subordinate to the entity;
• the driver bore no genuine business risk.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

What was decisive was the combined occurrence of these circumstances: repetitiveness, continuity, fixed hours, organisational subordination and the absence of business risk on the contractor's side. The mere use of the ordering party's vehicle or other tools does not automatically determine an employment relationship – in this case it was one of several consistent elements.

Sixth interpretation: a childcare assistant during transport

The sixth interpretation concerned a person supervising children during transport. The way the duties were organised was assessed as being closer to an employment relationship than to an independent mandate.

Seventh interpretation: students working in a bakery

The facts

The last of the interpretations discussed concerned students performing work in a bakery. The applicant pointed to the students' status and the irregular nature of the work performed.

How the cooperation was organised

For the assessment, it proved significant that the students:

• did not determine their current tasks themselves;
• performed duties imposed by the employer;
• remained subordinate to the adopted organisation of work.

Decisive factors and the GIP's position

Neither student status nor the irregularity of the work determines whether a mandate contract can be applied. What matters is the conditions under which the duties are performed.

What criteria matter most to the GIP?

The most important criterion arising from the first interpretations is genuine subordination – referred to in practice as employee-type subordination. The assessment covers primarily the following questions:

• who determines the place of work;
• who determines working hours and the schedule;
• who issues ongoing instructions;
• whether the contractor is subject to supervision;
• who organises how tasks are performed;
• whether the contractor forms part of the organisational structure;
• whether the contractor may decline to accept a given task;
• whether the contractor independently decides on the manner of performance;
• whether the contractor may genuinely use a substitute;
• who provides the tools for the work;
• who is responsible for the result;
• who bears the business risk;
• whether the remuneration relates to availability and following instructions or to an independent service.

The assessment should take the cooperation as a whole into account. A single element – for example using the ordering party's tools or working at the client's premises – need not on its own determine the classification of the relationship. What is decisive is the sum of the circumstances and the picture that emerges from them.

A well-drafted contract is not enough

The first interpretations show that consistency between the document and actual practice is what matters most. A contract can provide for:

• any place and time for performing duties;
• a right to use a substitute;
• no subordination;
• full contractor liability;
• bearing business risk;
• the ability to decline a task.

If, however, everyday practice looks different – the ordering party's coordinator draws up the schedule, declining a task never actually happens, and substitution has never been used – the contractual provisions may not be sufficient to defend the model.

Can one-off or irregular work be an employment relationship?

Yes. A short duration, casual character or lack of a regular schedule do not in themselves rule out an employment relationship. What is decisive are the conditions under which the duties are actually performed.

At the same time, this does not mean that every short-term cooperation is an employment relationship. If the contractor retains independence, organises the manner of performance and bears the associated risk, a short cooperation period does not change its civil-law character.

How should a business audit its mandate and B2B contracts?

It is worth dividing the audit of mandate contracts and B2B contracts into two levels: documents and actual practice. Analysing only the contract template does not answer the question of how the cooperation will be assessed.

Documents

• mandate contracts and service agreements;
• orders and scopes of services;
• internal regulations and procedures;
• remuneration rules;
• provisions on the contractor's liability;
• substitution rules;
• the ability to decline a task;
• rules for terminating the cooperation;
• provisions on tools used for work;
• allocation of business risk;
• reporting rules.

Actual practice

• who draws up the schedule;
• who determines the place of work;
• who issues current instructions;
• whether a task can genuinely be declined;
• whether substitution actually functions;
• who supplies the tools;
• how performance is supervised;
• whether the contractor is part of a team and structure;
• whether the contractor uses procedures typical of employees;
• what the remuneration is actually paid for;
• whether the contractor also provides services to other clients;
• whether the contractor bears the economic consequences of how the service is performed.

Why is it worth carrying out an audit before applying for an interpretation?

Applying for a GIP interpretation requires a precise description of the facts. Before filing the application, it is worth:

• mapping the actual cooperation model;
• comparing the documents with actual practice;
• identifying discrepancies;
• assessing employment, tax and insurance risks;
• preparing and implementing the recommended corrections;
• only then precisely describing the facts in the application.

An application filed without first putting the model in order may lock in a description that does not match practice. At the same time, no particular outcome of the proceedings should be assumed in advance – an interpretation relates to the specific set of facts described.

What do the first GIP interpretations mean for businesses?

• Mandate contracts and B2B contracts remain permissible forms of cooperation.
• The name of the contract does not determine its classification.
• Genuine subordination is the most important factor.
• The contractor's autonomy must exist in fact, not only in the document.
• The risk of a mandate contract or B2B contract being reclassified often stems from how work is organised, not from the document itself.
• The contract and everyday practice must be consistent.
• An audit is needed before applying for an interpretation.
• The cooperation model should be reviewed periodically, since practice changes over time.

How can Zwyrtek Group help?

Verifying a cooperation model should not stop at checking the contract template. At Zwyrtek Group we analyse both the documentation and the actual way work is organised. We combine the perspectives of employment law, tax, social insurance, processes and risk management.

• audit of mandate contracts and B2B contracts;
• comparison of documentation against actual practice;
• identification of features of subordination;
• assessment of legal, tax and insurance risks;
• preparation of remedial recommendations;
• putting contracts, orders, procedures and liability arrangements in order;
• support before applying for a GIP interpretation;
• designing a safer cooperation model.

The areas in which we most often carry out such projects are legal advisory, tax advisory, business advisory and accounting, HR and payroll outsourcing. For companies that want to transfer the entire management of employment and cooperation to a specialised team, we offer People Operations Managed Services (available in Polish).

Would you like to verify the mandate contracts or B2B contracts used in your company? Book a free consultation → with the Zwyrtek Group team.

Disclaimer

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Assessing a specific cooperation model requires an analysis of the contract and of how the duties are actually performed.