Implementation of the EU Platform Workers Directive - The latest position in Poland

Why should I read this?

The EU Platform Workers Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/2831) (Directive) is in force and is required to be transposed into national laws by Member States by 2 December 2026. 

It is a common misconception that the Directive applies only to organisations operating “gig‑economy” models that operate through digital platforms, such as food delivery or transport apps. In practice, many companies may fall within its scope where they use technology such as websites and apps to provide services and where the organisation of work in the EU involves the use of automated monitoring or decision-making systems, or where they utilise third-party providers to do so.

No jurisdiction has yet fully transposed the Directive, but several jurisdictions have published draft laws. From these draft laws, variations are being seen. In practice, this means that organisations operating across multiple jurisdictions will need to monitor national transposition closely.

Poland is one of the most recent jurisdictions to publish its draft law, with the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy publishing a draft bill on 6 August 2026 - Draft Act on Working Through Digital Labour Platforms.

This briefing summarises the key aspects of the Polish draft.

“Poland’s draft bill transposing the EU Platform Work Directive goes significantly further than the Directive’s minimum requirements, creating an administrative reclassification procedure, extending the employment presumption to intermediaries, and imposing detailed reporting obligations.” Ewa Lachowska-Brol, Partner

What are the key differences between the Directive and the Polish draft?

In addition to providing platform workers with more clarity regarding their status and therefore their employment rights, the Directive seeks to strengthen controls and transparency over the algorithmic management that is often intrinsic to the organisation of work through digital labour platforms (DLPs). However, the Directive establishes a minimum framework, and Member States retain flexibility in several areas of implementation.

The key differences between the Directive and the Polish draft include:

• The employment presumption and administrative reclassification: The Directive requires Member States to put in place “appropriate and effective procedures” to verify and ensure the correct determination of employment status, but leaves the institutional design to national discretion. Poland has chosen an administrative model operated by the National Labour Inspectorate (PIP), although a platform worker can also invoke the presumption of employment directly before a labour court.

The procedure for triggering the presumption of employment via the PIP can be initiated in two ways: (i) on application: the person performing platform work, or their representative, files a request with PIP in which they demonstrate the likelihood that an employment relationship exists; or (ii) ex officio, where facts established in the course of a PIP inspection demonstrate the likelihood that an employment relationship exists. That likelihood is based on factual circumstances, in particular the exercise of control.

Under the Directive, the legal presumption of an employment relationship applies to the relationship between the DLP and the person performing platform work; intermediaries are addressed separately through an equal-treatment obligation and Member States' discretion to establish appropriate mechanisms, including joint and several liability. The Polish draft bill takes a broader approach. It applies the presumption directly to intermediaries as well as platforms, so that where a person performing platform work establishes a prima facie case that the platform or the intermediary exercises control, an employment relationship is presumed to exist with whichever entity exercises that control.

Once proceedings are initiated, the DLP and any relevant intermediary have 14 days from notification to rebut the presumption. If the presumption is not rebutted or the right to rebuttal is waived, the PIP issues a decision establishing the existence of an employment relationship, with the employment contract deemed concluded as of the date of the decision.

The proceedings will also consider the terms of the contract. In the event that elements cannot be conclusively determined from the evidence, statutory defaults apply: an indefinite-term contract, full-time hours, the employer’s registered office as the place of work, and remuneration at the national minimum wage. This “fallback” mechanism has no direct equivalent in the Directive and may prove particularly consequential for DLPs that engage workers on flexible or task-based arrangements.

A further notable difference is that the draft provides for the possibility of seeking a determination of the existence of an employment relationship for the period preceding the issuance of the administrative decision. The is no similar provision in the Directive and, based on the wording of the draft, this appears to be a mandatory obligation. It is expected that this element will be further clarified during the legislative process.

• Enhanced protections during reclassification proceedings: The draft bill introduces protective measures that go beyond the Directive’s minimum requirements. In accordance with the draft, if the DLP or an intermediary terminates the contract or causes work to cease at any point between the commencement of an inspection (or service of notice of proceedings) and the expiry of the appeal deadline (or final court ruling), the date of the deemed employment contract is backdated to the commencement of the inspection or service of the notice. This backdating mechanism is designed to deter DLPs from retaliating against individuals who seek reclassification.

In addition, the initiation of reclassification proceedings interrupts the statute of limitations for employee claims. This means that workers who are eventually reclassified will be able to pursue arrears of pay, holiday entitlement and other employment rights that might otherwise have become time-barred during the course of the proceedings.

• Reporting obligations: The Directive requires DLPs to make certain information available to national authorities. The Polish draft bill divides the reporting obligations into those applicable to “persons performing platform work” (defined as any individual who performs work through a DLP on the basis of any contractual arrangement (whether an employment relationship or a civil law contract) or as undeclared work) and those applicable to “platform employees” (which covers employees within the meaning of Article 2 of the Polish Labour Code) and significantly expands the Directive’s requirements, imposing a layered reporting regime :
  • Pre-commencement notification (applicable to platform employees only): DLPs must notify PIP of the employment of a platform worker before the worker begins work.
  • Court-application reporting: DLPs must report to PIP whenever a court applies the employment presumption in proceedings involving one of its workers.
  • Periodic data submissions: DLPs must submit detailed data to PIP and workers’ representatives, broken down by contract type, activity level, general terms, intermediaries and type of work. Updates must be provided at least every six months (annually for SMEs with fewer than 50 workers).
  • On-request data: On request from PIP or workers’ representatives, DLPs must provide average activity duration, average weekly working hours and average income data.

The level of granularity required under the Polish regime exceeds what is contemplated by the Directive and will require DLPs to invest in data-collection and reporting infrastructure.

• Algorithmic management: The Directive establishes a framework for the regulation of automated monitoring and decision-making systems. The Polish draft bill generally replicates this framework but introduces several noteworthy departures:
  • Scope of human-decision requirement: The draft bill requires human review of decisions to terminate the contractual relationship or to restrict, suspend or delete a worker’s account, but notably omits the restriction or suspension of the contractual relationship from the human-decision requirement, albeit including within scope any “decision causing equivalent harm”.
  • Representative protections: The draft bill introduces a one-year dismissal protection for employee representatives following consultations on automated systems, whereas the Directive includes a general requirement to protect platform workers and their representatives from any adverse treatment, without any time limit.
• Penalties: The draft bill establishes a two-tier penalty regime. Information and notification offences (failures to notify PIP, failures to provide required data and related procedural non-compliance) carry fines of PLN 2,000–60,000 (approximately €460–€13,800). For data-protection breaches relating to the processing of personal data by automated systems, the GDPR ceiling is applied of up to €20 million or 4% of total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

What is likely to happen next?

The bill is currently in the legislative process and may be amended. A key point to watch is whether the legislature clarifies the inspector’s obligation to bring a separate action seeking recognition of the employment relationship for the period preceding the administrative decision.

A six-month grace period applies to first-time reporting, information, preventive-measures and communication obligations. DLPs will therefore have a limited runway to establish compliant processes.

It is also worth noting that the employment presumption does not have retroactive effect. For contracts concluded before 2 December 2026 and still in force on that date, the presumption applies only to the period from 2 December 2026 onwards. Any claims concerning the possible existence of an employment relationship prior to that date fall to be assessed under the applicable law before the draft bill enters into force. This ensures that the new reclassification framework applies to contractual relationships on a forward-looking basis from entry into force.

How we can help

Our extensive global footprint means that we are well placed to support global employers in their current and future plans, wherever they have a presence. Our lawyers are not only thought leaders in the complexities of different laws, but also in the management of projects spanning jurisdictions and driving those projects to maximise the strategic aims and benefits.

Our teams have been supporting employers to get ready for the requirements of the EU Platform Workers Directive, including:

• gap analysis to assess current operating, contracting (customer and supplier) and governance models against the Directive’s scope and requirements.
• supporting the development of pragmatic, phased implementation plans.
• advising on the interaction between the Directive and existing national frameworks and regional approaches.
• delivering targeted training for legal, HR, compliance and operational teams on the practical implications of the Directive.