Legislative work is underway on a bill amending the Act on the Conditions for the Admissibility of Entrusting Work to Foreigners in the Territory of the Republic of Poland. Analysis of the proposed solutions shows that some of them could significantly complicate the employment of foreigners, increase administrative burdens, and heighten legal and financial risks for businesses.
Abolition of the criterion of working "under direction"
Currently, sanctions apply to assigning a foreigner to work "for and under the direction of" another entity, unless it is done as part of a temporary employment arrangement. The bill removes the "under the direction" element, leaving only the requirement of performing work "for" another entity.
This change has significant practical implications. It was precisely the criterion of subordination—that is, who actually organizes the work, issues orders, sets the schedule, and is responsible for its results—that distinguished the provision of an employee from the provision of services under the outsourcing model. Once this criterion is removed, the mere performance of tasks "on behalf of" the contractor may be sufficient for sanctions to be applied, a feature of virtually every service agreement, subcontracting, or outsourcing.
In practice, this means that the same rules as those for illegal employee sharing also risk extending to typical business models, such as process outsourcing. Companies providing such services—particularly common in manufacturing and logistics—may face charges for violating the regulations.
Cumulative administrative penalties for each foreigner
The draft bill stipulates that administrative penalties (up to PLN 50,000) will be imposed separately for each foreigner, and aggregated accordingly if a larger number of employees are involved. Mechanically adding up penalties without any upper limit means that for a single violation—especially if it is systemic or documented, rather than intentional abuse—the total penalty may reach a level disproportionate to the gravity of the violation. If the error affects a larger group of employed foreigners, the total individual penalties may reach several, or even tens of millions of zlotys.
In extreme cases, this mechanism could lead to a loss of financial liquidity or even insolvency for the entrepreneur due to a misconduct that did not result in any actual harm to the foreigners employed. This also raises questions about the proportionality of the administrative sanction to the degree of guilt and the scale of the actual damage.
A rigid limit of 40–184 hours and the need for a new document for each change
The amendment introduces a monthly limit on foreigners' working hours for civil law contracts – no less than 40 and no more than 184 hours. At the same time, increasing the number of hours beyond the number indicated in the work legalization document will require obtaining a new permit.
Fixed hourly work schedules are incompatible with the specific nature of civil law relationships, which are used for occasional, seasonal, project-based, or order-dependent work, among other things. A lower limit of 40 hours may prevent the legal assignment of a small-time workload to a foreigner, even if this form of cooperation suits both parties. The upper limit of 184 hours, on the other hand, does not take into account the varying number of working days in individual months or flexible workload scheduling.
Equally problematic is the requirement to apply for a new document each time the number of hours changes. In practice, this means that any change resulting from the calendar, a client's downtime, a raw material shortage, a breakdown, the absence of another employee, or a seasonal increase or decrease in orders may require restarting the official procedure. Industries with highly volatile labor demand, such as logistics, manufacturing, hospitality, food service, agriculture, construction, and care services, will be most affected, losing the ability to respond quickly and flexibly to changing business needs.
Refusal or revocation of a permit based solely on "information" about a violation
The bill stipulates that the authority will be able to refuse or revoke a permit if it becomes aware of a previous violation of the regulations by the entrepreneur or failure to pay remuneration to a foreigner despite a payment request. The regulations do not require a final judgment of a labor court, a final decision of the competent authority, or even undisputed validity of the payment itself.
A pay dispute is often a civil matter and may stem from discrepancies regarding the number of hours worked, the quality of the work performed, deductions made, or the parties' liability for damages. The body conducting the permit proceedings does not have the tools of a labor court, yet its decision—based solely on information about the alleged violation—can determine the fate of the foreigner's employment.
Vague "obstruction of proceedings" as a basis for refusal
The new ground for refusing a permit is a situation in which an entrepreneur "obstructs the proceedings" by refusing to provide explanations or documents relevant to the case. The concept of "obstructing the proceedings" has not been defined.
The Act does not specify what specific behaviors should be considered obstruction, nor does it make the application of this criterion dependent on the entrepreneur's guilt or any prior notices. As a result, the authority will have a very broad discretion in assessing whether "obstruction of proceedings" has occurred.
Summary
The changes presented – although announced as streamlining the system for legalizing the work of foreigners – go much further in several important respects. In particular, the changes concerning the risk of banning process outsourcing, the accumulation of penalties without an upper limit, the introduction of fixed hourly rates for civil law contracts, and the vague, discretionary grounds for refusing or revoking a permit all create significant legal, financial, and organizational risks for businesses employing foreigners.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The law is current as of August 5, 2026.
Author:
