Recently, the Chief Labor Inspector (GIP) has been issuing an increasing number of individual interpretations regarding the appropriate form of employment. Businesses are eager to submit such applications to verify whether their employment model is appropriate. In today's article, we will explore the issue of student employment under a contract of mandate based on the circumstances outlined in the business's application.
The factual circumstances constituting the basis for the application
The bakery company employs employees under employment contracts and works with students on a contract basis. Students assist in the stores and production. They self-report their availability days and hours. During exam periods or internships, they can choose not to accept orders for several weeks without any consequences.
The entrepreneur remained convinced that such freedom supported the civil law nature of the cooperation. The authority found that this model of cooperation was incorrect.
What happens during work is decisive
In its decision of 17 August 2026 (GIP-26-272174, GIP-GPP.50.18.2026.2), the authority stated that the freedom of students to determine their availability does not determine the civil law nature of employment.
A key issue in the interpretation of the General Labor Inspectorate (GIP) is the separation of the ability to choose hours from the independence in performing tasks. After reporting availability, the student becomes part of the ongoing sales or production process organized by the company. The GIP assessed that the entrepreneur determines each time what needs to be done, guided by the store's needs or the production plan for a given day.
The interpretation doesn't overlook the flexibility the company cited. Students aren't required to work a specific number of hours or be constantly available for work. They can also split their activities into one day: helping open the store in the morning, going to classes, and returning in the afternoon.
In the opinion of the body, the manner in which current responsibilities are assigned is crucial in this matter. Students can decide when they are available, but they do not independently determine what tasks they will perform once they begin work. The Chief Labor Inspectorate (GIP) concluded that under the described conditions, the characteristics of an employment relationship prevail, particularly subordination to the organization of work and the day-to-day decisions of the employer.
The name of the contract itself does not determine
The Labor Code links an employment relationship to the performance of a specific type of work for an employer, under their direction, at a time and place designated by them, for remuneration. The nature of the employment is not determined by the name of the signed contract. Nor is it determined solely by the preference of students, who—as the company described—chose freelance work to more easily balance work with studies.
The interpretation does not mean that every student's occasional work in a shop or bakery must be performed under an employment contract. The authority assessed the specific model presented in the entrepreneur's application. It also indicated that during an inspection, the inspectorate may examine the actual terms of the collaboration if they differ from those described in the application.
For companies using student assistance, there's a practical lesson to be learned from this: when assessing the type of contract, it's important to consider the entire work organization. While a flexible schedule is important, who assigns tasks and manages their execution once work begins is equally crucial.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of September 25, 2026.
Author / Editor of the series:
