B2B reclassification into an employment contract – in early January 2026, the government announced that it would not continue the PIP reform aimed at strengthening the “administrative” reclassification of contracts. This does not mean a “green light” for any cooperation model: reclassifying B2B into an employment contract remains a real risk, because it depends mainly on how the work is actually performed in practice (not on what the contract is called).
What was supposed to change at PIP and why it still matters
In the publicly discussed version of the reform, the core assumption was as follows: a labour inspector was to receive a tool to “determine” the existence of an employment relationship through an administrative procedure (by way of a decision), instead of referring the matter exclusively to court. This direction was communicated in government materials related to the draft.
During the debate, further details were also discussed, including (among other things) immediate enforceability and potential “retroactive” effects.
Today it is clear that this mechanism will not be introduced.
B2B reclassification into an employment contract – why the risk remains despite the lack of a PIP reform
The risk remains because the foundation is the Labour Code: if the cooperation has the characteristics of an employment relationship (supervision/management, time and place designated by the employer, work performed for remuneration), then it is employment under an employment relationship—regardless of the name of the contract.
It is also worth remembering that PIP plans inspections in areas where abuses of civil-law contracts occur—this follows directly from PIP’s action programme for 2025–2027.
B2B reclassification into an employment contract – the “red flags” that most often undermine B2B
The most common elements that create an “employment-like” picture include:
- Fixed working hours and an obligation to remain constantly available “like an employee”.
- A workplace designated on a day-to-day basis (desk/workstation) + mandatory constant presence.
- Ongoing supervision: instructions on how tasks must be performed, not only on the goal/result.
- Integration into the “employee” structure: a line manager, periodic performance reviews, “leave subject to approval”, internal rules as for employees.
- Salary-like remuneration: a fixed monthly amount for “mere availability”, with no result-based condition and no business risk on the contractor’s side.
- Exclusivity / non-compete clauses without a proportionate business justification.
- No real possibility of substitution / using subcontractors.
How to mitigate the risk
Below is a brief summary of the key aspects taken into account in a B2B audit:
1) Contract layer (B2B “on paper”):
- describing the cooperation as a service / deliverable-based result;
- the ability to use a subcontractor/substitute (sensibly regulated);
- settlements based on stages/scope, not “working time like in employment”;
- contract wording free from “employment-type” clauses.
2) Company procedures layer (B2B in internal processes)
The issue of applying internal processes to contractors that are the same as those used for employees.
3) Factual layer (how it really works):
- whether the contractor can realistically refuse imposed hours/place of work;
- whether the contractor genuinely has autonomy in organising their work;
- whether communication resembles a service relationship or a manager–subordinate relationship.
How we can help?
- B2B risk audit: contracts + actual practice + internal procedures (we jointly set priorities for changes).
- Improving B2B contract templates (so they are consistent with the real cooperation model and resilient to typical allegations).
- Designing procedures: onboarding, communication, acceptance of deliverables, settlements, benefit policies.
- Preparing for inspections: organising documentation and arguments (PIP/ZUS).
We strongly encourage you to get in touch.
If you have questions about B2B reclassification into an employment contract, visit: www.outsourced.pl.
