Collective agreements under new rules, legal risks of AI, and limits on changing employee duties
I. Collective agreements under new rules
The Act of 5 November 2025 on collective labour agreements and collective arrangements has replaced the existing regulations contained in the Labour Code of 1974. The aim is to increase the significance of collective agreements and revitalise social dialogue in Poland.
The new provisions allow the conclusion of company-level and supra-company collective agreements on matters that are not mandatorily regulated by law. At the same time, the principle of favourability has been maintained – provisions may not be less favourable to the employee than the applicable labour law.
Open catalogue of matters
The Act expands the range of topics that may be regulated in agreements. These include, among others, solutions supporting work-life balance, the use of new technologies (including AI), actions promoting gender equality, anti-mobbing procedures, and measures to counter psychosocial risks such as stress and occupational burnout. This is not a closed list. Social partners will be able to jointly determine what they wish to regulate within an agreement.
The Polish legislator has also introduced the possibility of engaging a mediator at the negotiation stage, which is intended to streamline the bargaining process.
The changes also concern the flexibility of agreements – they may be concluded for a fixed term (with the option of extension) or for an indefinite period. The new regulations allow supra-company agreements to be concluded by at least two employers, without the need for the involvement of an employers’ organisation.
National register of collective labour agreements
Under the Act, instead of registering agreements, a notification system has been introduced – collective agreements and arrangements must be submitted to the National Register of Collective Labour Agreements (KEUZP) exclusively in electronic form.
II. Legal risks associated with the use of AI tools
The absence of clear rules governing the use of AI tools significantly increases legal risks for organisations in Poland — both in the area of data protection, trade secrets, and employee liability. Establishing policies for AI use is an essential element of effective risk management.
Use of AI and the risk of data disclosure
Employees are increasingly turning to AI solutions, as these tools enable more efficient task completion. In practice, they are often unaware that entering data may mean transferring it outside the organisational structure. This risk applies particularly when HR information, excerpts from contracts, client databases, or whistleblower reports are involved. Inputting such information may be regarded as disclosure to a third party and processing under conditions beyond the employer’s control.
Use of AI and disciplinary dismissal
The mere use of AI without the employer’s knowledge is not sufficient grounds for termination of employment without notice. For disciplinary proceedings to be applicable, all of the following conditions must be met simultaneously:
- unlawfulness of the employee’s conduct,
- a threat to or infringement of the employer’s interests,
- fault on the part of the employee.
If the employee knew, or should have foreseen with due diligence, that using an AI tool would breach their employment obligations and expose the employer to legal, financial, or reputational consequences, their conduct may be deemed gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing.
The absence of grounds for disciplinary dismissal does not mean the employee bears no liability. The employer may:
- impose disciplinary penalties,
- terminate the employment contract with notice,
- seek compensation under the provisions on employee material liability.
Should a trade secret be disclosed, the provisions of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition may apply. Disclosure of such information in breach of regulations or obligations (e.g. arising from the work regulations or a confidentiality clause) is subject to a fine, restriction of liberty, or imprisonment of up to two years. Similar consequences may arise from a breach of GDPR provisions.
Employer’s liability for the use of AI
Many employers assume that content generated by AI may be used without verification. This is a risky assumption. As a general rule, the employer acquires economic copyright to works created by an employee in the course of their duties. This does not, however, determine whether material generated with AI assistance meets the criteria of a work, or whether it infringes the rights of third parties. The risk of infringement may arise both where third-party works are used as training data and where content generated by these systems — which may closely resemble protected works — is published. It is worth noting that if an employee causes damage to a third party in the course of performing their duties, liability towards the injured party rests with the employer. Only after making good the damage may the employer seek recourse from the employee, with the employee’s liability generally capped at three months’ salary.
Assessing employee liability for the use of AI
When analysing cases of unauthorised use of AI tools, the employer should establish, among other things:
- which version of the tool the employee used,
- whether the system used data for model training or conversation retention,
- the nature of the data entered,
- the scale and frequency of the breach,
- the employee’s intent,
- the consequences of the breach.
Different versions of AI tools offer varying levels of data protection. Business versions provide a significantly higher level of security.
III. Can an employee be reassigned to any role? The limits of instruction under Article 42 § 4 of the Polish Labour Code
The Polish Labour Code permits the temporary assignment of an employee to work other than that specified in their employment contract. However, this entitlement is not unlimited. Even in exceptional circumstances — such as unforeseen events or organisational disruptions — the employer must satisfy specific statutory conditions.
This provision is frequently used as a tool for flexible workforce management, particularly during periods of transitional organisational difficulties or increased demand for labour in other areas of the business. At the same time, its improper application may lead to employment disputes and the overturning of HR decisions before the Labour Court. It is therefore of key importance to interpret the statutory conditions correctly and to document adequately the reasons for the temporary reassignment.
When reassignment to other work is permissible
Under Article 42 § 4 of the Labour Code, amendment of the terms and conditions of employment or remuneration is not required where an employee is assigned — in situations justified by the employer’s needs — to work other than that specified in the employment contract for a period not exceeding three months in a calendar year, provided that:
- the employee’s remuneration is not reduced,
- the work assigned corresponds to the employee’s qualifications.
The purpose of this regulation is to enable the employer to respond flexibly to transitional organisational, technical, or production needs without resorting to a formal amendment of employment terms. An instruction to perform other work under this procedure does not require consultation with a trade union.
“Justified needs of the employer”
The regulations do not define what constitutes the “justified needs of the employer”. In practice, the assessment lies with the employer; however, in the event of a dispute, it is the employer who must demonstrate before the Court that the conditions have been met. Examples of situations justifying the application of Article 42 § 4 of the Labour Code include:
- the implementation of new technological or organisational solutions,
- staffing shortages requiring employee redeployment,
- a temporary increase in production or sales,
- reorganisation of work.
In its judgment of 17 December 1998 (case ref. I PKN 429/97), the Polish Supreme Court held that a justified need of the employer may include the inability to employ a worker in the position of salesperson due to the refusal of other employees to sign a joint liability agreement.
Work must correspond to the employee’s qualifications
The condition that the assigned work must correspond to the employee’s qualifications means that:
- it must not require qualifications higher than those held,
- nor should it be work significantly below the employee’s qualifications, which would result in their being underutilised.
In its judgment of 8 May 1997 (case ref. I PKN 131/97), the Supreme Court indicated that assigning a chemical technician to work requiring no qualifications (such as cleaning) constitutes a violation of Article 42 § 4 of the Labour Code, and that refusal to perform such work does not justify termination of the employment contract under Article 52 § 1(1) of the Labour Code. The Court of Appeal in Katowice, in its judgment of 5 July 2018 (case ref. III APa 22/18), emphasised that directing a highly qualified employee to the most basic tasks may constitute a violation of their dignity.
Time limit
The assignment to other work may last a maximum of three months in a given calendar year. This period:
- may be divided into several parts,
- may span the turn of two years (e.g. October to March), which in practice allows the employee to perform other work for up to six months in total — three months in each calendar year.
Assignment for a longer period requires the employee’s consent.
Employee refusal and the risk of dispute
If an employee refuses to carry out an instruction that complies with Article 42 § 4 of the Labour Code and the employer terminates the contract on disciplinary grounds (Article 52 of the Labour Code), the Labour Court will assess whether the employer’s justified needs genuinely existed and whether the instruction was lawful.
Source: The article was created in collaboration with our cooperation partner – sdzlegal Schindhelm Law Office
If you have any questions regarding this topic or if you are in need for any additional information – please do not hesitate to contact us:
CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS DEPARTMENT
ELŻBIETA NARON
Head of Customer Relationships
Department / Senior Manager
getsix® Group
***
