New Anti-Bullying Rules in Poland from November 2026: What Employers Need to Implement Now

From 5 November 2026, employers in Poland can no longer limit themselves to holding a formal anti-bullying policy. The new regulations shift the weight of responsibility towards systematic, genuine and documentable action — a policy “in a drawer” that nobody applies ceases to provide any protection. Legal status: 8 November 2026.

The changes cover several areas at once: a new definition of bullying (mobbing), a lower evidential threshold for those affected, a minimum level of compensation, a duty of systematic prevention, detection, response and remediation, and a requirement to formalise rules and procedures for employers with at least 10 employees.

For boards, owners and HR teams this means one thing: workplace bullying is no longer a purely legal topic. It becomes part of risk management, compliance and organisational culture.

What is changing in the regulations?

The table below compares the key differences between the previous and the new legal framework:

Each of these elements individually changes how an organisation should respond to warning signs. Together they create a new standard: the employer must not only have rules in place, but be able to demonstrate that they work.

The new definition: persistence instead of duration

The previous definition required proof that the harassment or intimidation was persistent and long-term, and additionally that it pursued a specific purpose (such as forcing the employee to resign) and produced specific effects. In practice, this threshold was difficult to meet — many claims were dismissed not because the behaviour was acceptable, but because it had not lasted long enough.

The new definition rests on the criterion of persistence alone. Behaviour is persistent when it is:

• repeated — multiple times, though not necessarily regularly;
• recurring — appearing cyclically, in specific situations;
• continuous — sustained over time as a fixed pattern of behaviour.

The consequence is significant: an intense series of behaviours over a relatively short period may be recognised as bullying. The employee no longer needs to prove the perpetrator's intent or a health disorder in order to pursue a claim. For employers, this means that cases which could previously be dismissed as “too short” or “too recent” can no longer be set aside.

What is not bullying?

The new definition does not mean that every difficult situation at work becomes a bullying case. Bullying does not include:

• substantive evaluation of work;
• fair assessment against targets;
• justified criticism;
• enforcement of work instructions.

The line is crossed when communication loses its objective character and turns into personal humiliation, isolation or repeated ostracism. It is precisely this line that will be the subject of disputes — and precisely why it matters so much that managers can recognise it and that the organisation documents how it trains them.

Staffing — upward bullying

The new regulations expressly specify the circle of potential perpetrators: bullying may involve behaviour by a supervisor or a colleague, but also by a subordinate or a collaborating person. This formally confirms the phenomenon known as *staffing* — the harassment of a manager by subordinates or a group of subordinates.

In practice, staffing takes characteristic forms:

• ignoring the instructions of a new manager;
• boycotting arrangements on messaging tools;
• deliberately withholding data needed for reporting or task delivery;
• isolating the supervisor from information and decisions.

The phenomenon most often appears during personnel changes, restructurings and when a new manager joins a team with a strong, closed culture. An anti-bullying policy should protect all participants in the organisation, regardless of their position — a procedure that only provides for “bottom-up” reports does not reflect the new legal framework.

Financial risk and employer liability

As a rule, the employee directs bullying claims against the employer — it is the employer who is responsible for the working environment, even where the perpetrator is a specific individual. The novelty is a statutory minimum threshold for compensation: six times the minimum wage. The actual amount awarded by a court may be higher, and on top of that come litigation costs, organisational costs and reputational damage that cannot be captured in a single line item.

The regulations also introduce a recourse mechanism: an employer that has paid compensation may seek reimbursement from the direct perpetrator. Recourse does not, however, release the employer from liability — it is not an instrument of prevention, but of settlement after the damage has occurred. The only real protection remains an effective prevention and response system whose operation can be demonstrated.

Five pillars of an effective anti-bullying system

An effective system is not a single document. It is a set of connected elements that must work together and leave a trace.

1. Prevention

Training for all employees, clear communication standards, dedicated management training and regular measurement of organisational sentiment. Prevention only works when it is cyclical — a one-off training session on obligations does not build a standard.

2. Detection

Safe reporting channels, including the option of anonymous reporting, and analysis of data the organisation already holds: turnover, absence, survey results. Many cases come to light not through a formal report, but through a pattern in the data.

3. Response

A clear path for handling cases: defined timelines, ensured impartiality, a properly appointed committee, a documented course of proceedings. A failure to respond to a report is no longer mere neglect — it is an independent source of liability.

4. Remediation

Consequences for the perpetrator, mediation, organisational and managerial changes. Proceedings that end merely with establishing the facts, without remedial action, do not discharge the employer's duty.

5. Support

Protection of the reporter and witnesses against retaliation, and psychological and legal assistance for those involved in the case. Without genuine protection against retaliation, reporting channels will remain empty.

A six-step implementation plan

For organisations starting from scratch, or wishing to verify their existing arrangements, a practical sequence of actions looks as follows:

1. Audit existing documentation and processes — work regulations, procedures, management practices, previous reports and how they were handled.
2. Update or prepare the anti-bullying procedure — aligned with the new definition, the catalogue of behaviours and the circle of protected persons.
3. Implement a safe reporting channel — with the option of anonymity and clear confidentiality rules.
4. Run an anonymous survey of psychological safety and sentiment — a baseline for later effectiveness assessment.
5. Train the board, HR and managers — recognising behaviours, the boundaries of criticism, conducting conversations, handling reports.
6. Document actions, monitor and periodically review effectiveness — the system must be alive, and its operation demonstrable.

The formal deadline for adapting procedures for employers with at least 10 employees should not be treated as a period of inaction. Liability risk exists from the moment the new rules take effect — a bullying case may arise in an organisation that is still “working on its procedure”.

A policy is not enough — you need a trail of action

In court disputes, what will matter is not whether the employer holds a document, but whether it can demonstrate the system actually operating: who received a report and when, how the proceedings unfolded, what decisions were made, what remedial actions were taken and whether their effectiveness was reviewed. This requires tools that organise the process and leave a trail.

Technology does not replace legal assessment or managerial responsibility, but it can significantly streamline the implementation and documentation of processes. Zwyrtek Group's technology partner is PeopleForce — its solutions can support organisations, among other things, through:

• the Desk module as a channel for secure, including anonymous, reporting of violations;
• the ability to document the course of a case and related communication in one place;
• the Pulse module for anonymous engagement surveys and identifying early risk signals;
• centralisation of selected HR processes and reporting.

It is a tool supporting the delivery of the process, not a tool guaranteeing compliance — decisions, case assessment and responsibility remain with the organisation.

How Zwyrtek Group supports employers

Zwyrtek Group supports employers in preparing for the new requirements, combining legal, HR, organisational and technological perspectives. Our support may include:

• an audit of procedures, work regulations and management practices;
• drafting or updating anti-bullying procedures;
• designing the process for receiving and handling reports;
• training for boards, HR, managers and teams;
• support in explanatory proceedings;
• implementation of tools supporting HR processes and case management;
• periodic reviews of the effectiveness of adopted solutions.

Zwyrtek Group is a PeopleForce partner. The cooperation allows us to combine employment law advisory and training with the practical use of HR technology.

If you would like to assess whether your policies, management practices and HR tools are ready for the new rules, contact the Zwyrtek Group team.

---

*This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal status: 8 November 2026. We recommend an individual consultation before making any decisions.*