New Mobbing Definition in Poland – No More ‘Long-Term’ Requirement

Poland’s amended Labour Code reduces the definition of workplace mobbing (bullying) to a single criterion – persistent harassment of an employee. The “long-term” requirement is dropped, and an employee claiming damages no longer has to prove that the mobbing caused a deterioration in their health. The amending act was passed by the Polish Sejm on 19 June 2026, and the President of Poland signed it on 30 July 2026. Below is what the new legal construction looks like, which behaviours may now qualify as mobbing once it takes effect, and which still will not.

One criterion instead of a multi-part test

Under the previous definition, set out in Article 94³ § 2 of the Polish Labour Code (Kodeks pracy), harassment or intimidation had to be both persistent and long-term, and it also had to cause a specific effect – a lowered assessment of the employee’s professional suitability, humiliation, ridicule, isolation, or exclusion from the team. All of these elements had to occur together. The new definition builds the entire concept on a single criterion: persistent harassment of an employee. The legislator clarified that “persistent” means harassment that is repetitive, recurring, or constant, and expressly excluded one-off, incidental behaviour from the scope of the definition – even if such behaviour infringes personal rights. This is a fundamental change in legal construction, drafted with reference to existing Polish case law and legal doctrine.

Mobbing before and after the amendment – comparison

What exactly the amendment changes

The changes to the mobbing concept itself move in several directions at once:

• A simplified definition – a single criterion instead of an elaborate description requiring long-term duration.
• Three forms of behaviour – mobbing can be physical, verbal, or non-verbal.
• A positive and a negative definition – the provision states both what mobbing is and what it is not, to make assessing the facts easier.
• Incidental behaviour excluded – a single, one-off incident does not meet the definition.
• Justified criticism excluded – holding an employee accountable for their assigned work, and criticising it appropriately, is not mobbing.
• A broad circle of potential perpetrators – behaviour can come from a supervisor, co-worker, or subordinate, acting alone or as part of a group.
• Intent is irrelevant – behaviour is assessed independently of the perpetrator’s intent and of whether a specific effect occurred.
• A more rational assessment – the new approach is meant to help distinguish genuine harassment from ordinary conflict or misunderstanding.

Damages without having to prove a deterioration in health

Separately from the definition itself, the new provisions confirm that an employee no longer has to prove that the mobbing caused a deterioration in their health in order to claim damages (zadośćuczynienie). This removes what, under the previous rules, was often the hardest piece of evidence for a harassed employee to provide.

Sample catalogue of mobbing behaviours

The new provisions list an open catalogue of behaviours that may constitute mobbing: humiliating or demeaning an employee, intimidation, unfairly lowering an assessment of their professional suitability, unjustified criticism, belittling or ridiculing, obstructing their work, communication, or access to information, and isolating an employee or excluding them from the team. There is one condition common to all of them: the behaviour must take the form of persistent harassment. The catalogue itself does not automatically decide anything – repetition is what matters.

Situations that may now be classed as mobbing

• Short-term harassment. Harassment or intimidation lasting less than six months – after the change, it is enough to show that it was persistent, i.e. repetitive, recurring, or constant.
• Harassment with breaks. The perpetrator harasses an employee but pauses, for example, during an inspection by Poland’s National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, PIP) or when senior management is present – the new provisions make clear that mobbing does not need to be constant.
• Behaviour without words. Refusing to speak to an employee, walking past them without a word, “rolling one’s eyes” at the sight of them – the provisions expressly cover non-verbal behaviour.

What still will not be mobbing

Not every unpleasant workplace behaviour meets the definition. Among the things that remain outside its scope are:

• A single instance of unjustified criticism – it may amount to an infringement of personal rights, but not to mobbing.
• Being “in a mood” with the team for a day – this can be assessed as unfriendly behaviour inconsistent with the rules of social conduct, but it is not mobbing unless it amounts to persistent harassment of one or more specific people.
• Holding an employee accountable for their work and criticising it – provided this is justified and expressed in an appropriate form.

This last point matters most for managers: what counts is not so much the fact of enforcing work performance as the form in which it is done.

What this means for employers and OHS teams in Poland

The burden of assessment shifts from the question “how long did it last” to the question “did it recur”. This changes how employee complaints need to be analysed:

• individual incidents can no longer be assessed in isolation – what matters is whether they form a pattern,
• gaps in the perpetrator’s behaviour do not interrupt the overall assessment,
• the argument “I didn’t mean any harm” no longer carries weight, since intent has been excluded from the test,
• the perpetrator can be not only a supervisor but also a co-worker, a subordinate, or a group of people,
• the range of relevant behaviour includes gestures, facial expressions, and silence, not only spoken statements.

The employer’s underlying obligation to counteract mobbing is not itself the subject of this change – the amendment modifies the definition of the phenomenon, not the way preventive measures are organised within a company.

When the new rules take effect

The President of Poland signed the act on 30 July 2026. The new provisions will enter into force three months after publication in Poland’s Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw). Until then, the previous definition under Article 94³ § 2 of the Labour Code continues to apply – and this transition period is worth using to review internal anti-mobbing procedures and the way performance-review conversations are conducted, to check whether the form used to enforce duties could become the subject of a dispute. If you want to check whether your company’s procedures and documentation in Poland are ready for the upcoming change, get in touch with our team.

Summary

The new definition simplifies the assessment: instead of proving long-term duration and a health effect, an employee now has to show persistent harassment. The scope of the concept now includes non-verbal behaviour and harassment with breaks, and the perpetrator’s intent no longer matters. Incidental behaviour and justified, appropriately expressed criticism of work remain outside the definition.

Legal basis: Articles 3–6 of the Act of 19 June 2026 amending the Labour Code and the Code of Civil Procedure (Sejm paper No. 2289), Poland.