Trade union density is low at around 12% of employees and there are a large number of trade union organisations. But the vast majority (around 85%) of union members are in organisations linked to the three main union bodies, NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and the somewhat smaller, FZZ.

Annual official figures on union membership are not published, but the national statistics agency GUS published the results of a survey looking at unions and employers’ organisation in 2019.[1] Although the focus was on organisational structure and activities, the results included some information on union membership. The survey found that there were around 1.5 million trade union members in September 2018. Only 100,000 union members were retired and just 15,000 were not employees but working under a so-called “civil contract”, a relatively common form of work in Poland. This suggests that there were around 1.4 million employees who were union members at this date, and with the total number of employees estimated at 13.2 million in the third quarter of 2018,[2] this produces a union density figure of 10.6%. This is slightly lower than the figure produced by the polling company CBOS based on a survey of 936 people in September 2019. This estimated union membership among employees at 13.9%.[3] The independent ICTWSS database of industrial relations statistics calculated union density to be 12.7% in 2016.[4]

The GUS survey indicates that most union members, 1.3 million out of 1.5 million or 87%, are in three national union umbrella bodies, which are considered to be nationally representative and have specific rights. These are NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ. Their dominance in terms of union membership is also indicated by the CBOS survey, which estimates that 92% of union members belong to these three bodies.[5]

The development of each of the three organisations has been different.[6]

NSZZ Solidarność grew initially from the strikes in the Gdansk shipyard in 1980 at the time of the communist government. After a period of illegality following the imposition of martial law in December 1981 it re-emerged as a legal organisation in 1989. It played a direct political role in the years that followed through Akcja Wyborcza Solidarność (Solidarity Election Action), which formed part of Poland’s government from 1997 to 2000. It is now a trade union rather a political movement but still has ties to politics (see below). Figures provided to the European Trade Union Confederation show that NSZZ Solidarność had 543,587 members in 2019.[7] And the 2019 CBOS survey indicated that it was the largest trade union body in Poland, with 6.3% of Polish employees in membership, although the relatively small sample size and the fact that just two years earlier a comparable survey estimated it accounted for only 3.0% of employees makes this figure open to some doubt.

OPZZ was founded in 1984 after a period of martial law when all trade unions were banned and has remained in being throughout the political and economic transformation of Poland. A 2020 Eurofound study reports that it 792,503 members in 2012, but the current figure is likely to be lower.[8] Some estimates put it at around 500,000. The CBOS survey in 2019 found that 3.4% of Polish employees stated that they were in unions which belong to OPZZ, although, as with NSZZ Solidarność, this figure should be treated with caution, as a comparable survey in 2017 put the share of OPZZ at 4.6%.

FZZ is smaller than the other two confederations and is largely made up of unions which had earlier left OPZZ. It was formed in 2002, when the rules for a new tripartite commission bringing government, employers and unions together to discuss future legislation (see section on collective bargaining) provided that only union confederations with at least 300,000 members would be included. A series of independent union groupings, with a membership total of more than this threshold, grouped together to form FZZ and secure a place in the commission. The Eurofound study indicates it had 408,905 members in 2012.[9] Again the current figure is likely to be lower. The 2019 CBOS survey indicated that 2.2% of Polish employees were in FZZ unions.

The 2019 CBOS survey also showed that 1.0% of employees were in unions not affiliated to the main union confederations. And the GUS survey of trade union membership estimated that there were 200,000 union members outside the three main bodies. Some are members of the smaller confederations, such as Sierpień 80 or Związkowa Alternatywa. However, very many are in local unions, which are not affiliated to national confederations. A union can be legally founded by ten employees and the 2019 GUS survey found that there were around 2,300 union organisations not affiliated to the three main union bodies – most (1,900) operating at the level of a single company or workplace.

The OPZZ and FZZ confederations are also largely built around individual company or workplace unions, plus organisations operating across several companies. These company and multi-company union organisations come together in federations, which then form the confederations, although in some cases multi-company union bodies affiliate directly to the confederations. The 2019 GUS survey indicates that, although these bodies are numerous – 7,900 company and workplace unions and 2,100 multi-company unions, they are small. The average membership of a company or workplace union is just 86 members, and the median size is even smaller at 35. For multi-company unions, the average size is 195 members and the median size is 80. (These figures relate to union bodies affiliated to the three main union bodies. Non-affiliated local unions are smaller, with an average of 60 members and a median membership of 26 in company and workplace unions.)

As a result the OPZZ website lists 82 national-level membership organisations – both single unions and union federations, which are then brought together in seven industry groupings.[10] By far the largest national organisation affiliated to OPZZ is the teachers’ union ZNP, which is estimated to have around 200,000 members.

FZZ has 53 national-level union organisations that belong to it – it started with 17 in 2002 – as well as a 69 local organisations that belong to its regional structures.[11] Its largest affiliate is the nurses’ and midwives’ union OZZPIP, which states it has around 80,000 members.[12]

NSZZ Solidarność is structured differently. It is a unitary organisation with both a regional and industrial structure. There are 14 industrial sections plus a retired members section.[13] The basic organisational building block at local level is the single employer organisation (organizacja zakładowa) or the multi-employer organisation (organizacja międzyzakładowa), where the group covers more than one employer.

Politically NSZZ Solidarność is close to the conservative PiS party of Jarosław Kaczyński It backed Andrzej Duda, the PiS candidate in the presidential elections in 2020, with the union newspaper awarding Duda “man of the year” shortly before the first round in June. NSZZ Solidarność argues that the PiS government has delivered on key promises it made to the unions, notably lowering the retirement age. [14]

The OPZZ, on the other hand, which supported the left-wing SLD party in the past, has been much less willing to support the PiS government, clashing sharply with them during a major teachers’ strike in 2019. FZZ emphasises its political independence.

These differing political positions mean that relationships between the main union confederations are sometimes tense, particularly between NSZZ Solidarność abd OPZZ. However, this may be more obvious at national than at local or workplace level.[15]

Union membership has declined sharply since the early 1990s as a result of industrial restructuring and privatisation and a growth in employment in smaller companies in private services. Based on surveys conducted by CBOS, the proportion of employees in unions has fallen from 28% in 1991, to 20% in 2000, 15% in 2010 and 12.9% in 2019.[16]

The 2019 CBOS figures show that union membership is much higher in public institutions and state-owned companies, where 29% of employees are union members, than in the private sector or mixed public-private companies, where the figure is 4% in both cases. The 2017 CBOS survey showed that union membership was highest in education, science and health (26%) followed by public administration (20%) and transport and communication (20%). It was lowest in construction (0%). However, these are relatively small samples, so although the broad picture is correct the precise numbers probably are not. Large workplaces are much more likely to be unionised than small ones (19% where there are 250 or more employees compared with 5% where there are fewer than 50).[17]

Unions are making efforts to increase membership. NSZZ Solidarność, for example has a section of news on its website, called “union development” where it reports on local successes in increasing membership and organisation, and a national official responsible for union growth.[18]

Both NSZZ Solidarność and OPZZ also pushed hard to gain the right to organise workers employed under so-called “civil law contracts” rather than employment contracts. Before the unions’ ultimately successful action, Polish legislation prevented these workers from joining unions. This changed in January 2019 and unions can now recruit these workers, although it unclear how far they have been able to do so.

The GUS survey shows that just under half (47.7%) of union members are women. NSZZ Solidarność regularly responds to the ETUC’s annual gender audit and the 2019 report indicates that 40.0% of its membership is female. The most recent comparable figure for OPZZ is from 2010, when women made up 48.0% of its membership. There are no figures on FZZ’s female membership. [19]

[1] Partnerzy dialogu społecznego - związki zawodowe i organizacje pracodawców, GUS, 27.08.19 https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/gospodarka-spoleczna-wolontariat/gospodarka-spoleczna-trzeci-sektor/partnerzy-dialogu-spolecznego-zwiazki-zawodowe-i-organizacje-pracodawcow-wyniki-wstepne,16,1.html (Accessed 08.06.2020)

[2] Table 2.1 Aktywność ekonomiczna ludności Polski III kwartał 2018 roku, GUS 31.01.19

[3] Związki zawodowe w Polsce, Nr 138/2019, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (CBOS), November 2019 https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2019/K_138_19.PDF (Accessed 07.05.2020)

[4] Jelle Visser, ICTWSS Data base. Version 6.1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies AIAS. October 2019

[5] The 2019 figures show that 12.9% of employees are union members but only 1.0% are in union outsde the three main groupings.

[6] On the history of Polish trade unions, see Trade unions in Poland, by J. Gardawski, A. Mrozowicki, J. Czarzasty, Report 123 ETUI, Brussels 2012, p. 31-33.

[7] ETUC Annual Gender Equality Survey 2019 – 12th edition, by Lionel Fulton and Cinzia Sechi, ETUC, April 2019 https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/circular/file/2019-05/ETUC_Annual_Equality_Survey%202019_FINAL_EN.pdf (Accessed 03.04.2020)

[8] Living and working in Poland, by Jan Czarzasty and Adam Mrozowicki, Eurofound, May 2020 https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/country/poland#actors-and-institutions (Accessed 24.06.20)

[9] ibid

[10] See OPZZ website https://www.opzz.org.pl/o-nas/ogolnokrajowe-organizacje-czlonkowskie (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[11] See FZZ website http://fzz.org.pl/o-nas/ (Accessed 09.06.2020)

[12] OZZPIP website http://ozzpip.pl/o-nas/ (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[13] See NSZZ Solidarność website http://www.solidarnosc.org.pl/sekretariaty-branzowe (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[14] On the past political links of Solidarność see Trade unions in Poland by J. Gardawski, A. Mrozowicki, J. Czarzasty, Report 123, ETUI, Brussels 2012, p. 35.

[15] For a detailed examination of the role of unions in Poland, see Coming full circle? Contestation, social dialogue and trade union politics in Poland by Magdalena Bernaciak, in Rough waters: European trade unions in a time of crises, edited by Steffen Lehndorff, Heiner Dribbusch and Thorsten Schulten, ETUI, 2018

[16] Członkostwo w związkach zawodowych. Naruszenia praw pracowniczych i „szara strefa” w zatrudnieniu, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, 2009; Związki zawodowe i naruszenia praw pracowniczych, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (CBOS), 2010; and Związki zawodowe w Polsce, Nr 138/2019, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (CBOS), November 2019

[17] Działalność związków zawodowych w Polsce Nr 87/2017, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (CBOS), July, 2017

[18] See http://www.solidarnosc.org.pl/aktualnosci/wiadomosci/rozwoj (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[19] ETUC Annual Gender Equality Survey 2019 – 12th edition, by Lionel Fulton and Cinzia Sechi, ETUC, April 2019 https://www.etuc.org/sites/default/files/circular/file/2019-05/ETUC_Annual_Equality_Survey%202019_FINAL_EN.pdf (Accessed 03.04.2020)

Only a minority of employees in Poland are covered by collective bargaining, which takes place largely at company or workplace level. This means that where there are no unions to take up the issue, pay and conditions are set unilaterally by employers – subject to the national minimum wage.

The framework

Collective bargaining in Poland can take place either at the level of a single company or workplace or at a multi-employer level. However, in terms both of numbers covered and impact, it is collective bargaining at individual company level that is more important, although overall the impact of collective bargaining is limited.[1]

There are relatively few agreements at multi-employer level. The Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy, with which they must be registered, states on its website that currently there are only 61multi-employer agreements still in existence, along with 197 additional protocols (the usual mechanism for renewing agreements). This is only around a third of the 174 multi-employer agreements which were registered in the past. The others have either been terminated by one of the parties (99) or are effectively defunct as one of the parties no longer has the authority to sign the agreement (14). In total, the remaining agreements are estimated to cover around 200,000 employees.[2] A high proportion cover non-teaching staff working in education.[3] In some cases, the agreements do little more than restate the existing labour legislation.

The Polish Labour Code provides for the possibility of the government extending these multi-employer agreements to other employers with similar operations where there is “an important social interest” in doing so. However, this power has never been used.

Collective agreements at the level of individual companies or workplaces are more numerous than multi-employer agreements and cover more employees. They must be registered with the local labour inspectorate and the 2018 annual report from the national labour inspectorate (PIP) shows that 54 new collective agreements (covering 21,067 employees) and 945 additional protocols were registered in that year.[4] This compares with 50 (covering 28,230) in 2017 and 79 (covering 38,227) in 2016. Over a slightly longer period, the average number of company agreements is clearly falling. In the five years 2014 to 2108, an average of 68 agreements at this level were registered annually. In the five years before that, 2009 to 2013, the average was 118.

In addition, as is pointed out in the 2014 report from the labour inspectorate– the last one to examine collective agreements in detail, most of these agreements are replacing previous agreements which have been terminated. In 2014 there were only 25 agreements reached for the first time and 63 which replaced existing agreements.[5]

The 2014 labour inspectorate report also provides details on the number and coverage agreements at company and workplace level. On 31 December 2014, there were 8,173 agreements which were still current, covering around 1.8 million employees.

Taken with the 200,000 covered by multi-workplace agreements (see above), this suggests that collective bargaining coverage in Poland is around 15%. An ETUI examination of collective bargaining in Poland estimated coverage at 18% in 2015.[6]

Whichever estimate is taken, the majority of employees are not covered by collective agreements at any level. The 2014 labour inspectorate report talks of a “decreasing number of collective agreements”, an assessment shared by the unions. In October 2017, Piotr Duda, the head of NSZZ Solidarność, one of the largest union groupings in Poland told a conference, “unfortunately and with regret, one has to say that there are practically no collective agreements in Poland”.[7]

There is certainly no obligation on employers to negotiate a collective agreement, although, where one does not exist and the workplace has more than 20 workers, the employer must produce “remuneration regulations” (regulamin wynagrodzenia), setting out the basis on which individuals are paid and key working conditions.However, these are not negotiated but decided by the employer unilaterally.

The limited extent of multi-employer collective bargaining makes any discussion over the relationship between company-level and multi-level bargaining largely theoretical but the basic principles which applies is that workers’ terms are set by the agreement which is most beneficial to them.

Employers in financial difficulties have since 2002 been able to suspend collective agreements and other elements of their contractual obligations towards their employees, such as the remuneration regulations, for up to three years. By law this should be agreed with the trade union organisation in the workplace that initially signed the agreement, although this does not always happen. The 2018 report from the labour inspectorate states that there were 26 cases where a suspension of this sort was registered – slightly lower figure than in other recent years (2017 – 27; 2016 – 40; and 2015 – 50).

As well as negotiations at company level and to a lesser extent multi-workplace level, Poland also has a tripartite body, the Social Dialogue Council (RDS) which brings together representatives of unions, employers and government. On the union side its members come in equal number from NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ.

The RDS was set up in 2015 after the previous tripartite body, the Tripartite Commission (TK), collapsed in 2013, when the three main union bodies withdrew as a protest against the government’s social policy. The intention is that the RDS should provide a forum for unions and employers to influence government policy, including by commenting on employment and social legislation, and that it should also allow unions and employers to reach their own independent agreements. In addition, it plays a specific role in setting the minimum wage (see below).

However, experience with the RDS has not been particularly positive with suggestions that it has been marginalised and that the government ignores its proposals.[8] New powers for the government during the coronavirus pandemic giving it the right to remove RDS members were particularly criticised.

Who negotiates and when?

Agreements at the level of the individual company or workplace are negotiated between the individual employer and the local trade union organisation.[9] The legislation states that where there is more than one trade union organisation within the company the union organisations should negotiate jointly. This frequently occurs in practice, as relations between members of the different union confederations are often better at workplace than at national level.

The agreement should be reached with all the unions in the workplace or at least all the “representative” unions in the workplace – these are defined as having at least 15% of the workforce in membership – or 8% if the union organisation concerned belongs to one of the three nationally representative union bodies, NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ. If no union represents at least 10% of the workforce, then the agreement should be signed with the largest union in the company.

These rules were changed through amendments to the trade union law, which came into effect on 1 January 2019. The changes raised the thresholds for the definition of representative unions from 7% to 8% for nationally representative unions and from 10% to 15% for other unions. Unions were already obliged to provide the employer with their membership numbers and the 2019 legislation requires unions to provide these more frequently and gives employers, and other unions, the right to ask a court to verify the figures.

Multi-employer agreements are negotiated between an employers’ association and unions, which either have representative status (meaning that belong to one of the three nationally representative union bodies, or represent at least 10% of the employees and have at least 10,000 members in the companies to be covered by the agreement, or are the largest union in the companies being covered.

Agreements are typically for a year although financial difficulties sometimes mean that there is no annual settlement.

The subject of the negotiations

Agreements normally cover pay and its various components such as bonuses and allowances, although settlements often provide for one-off payments rather than percentage increases. Other issues covered include the organisation of working time, leave, health and safety, retirement and pension benefits, severance pay, premia for overtime, night time and holiday working, notice periods and company social benefits. However, the 2014 labour inspectorate report pointed to a “continuing tendency towards giving up earlier more favourable arrangements” with agreements reverting to the minimum employee rights set out in the Labour Code. It concluded: “The data show a decreasing number of collective agreements, limiting the scope of employee rights and a continuing tendency to terminate existing agreements and replace them with remuneration regulations.”[10]

Poland has a national minimum wage. The government is required to present its proposal on the minimum wage for the following year to the tripartite body the RDS by 15 June. The representatives of the unions and the employers then have an opportunity to express their views and, if possible, agree common position on the amount. Where agreement cannot be reached, the national minimum wage is set by government regulation.

[1] For a detailed analysis of collective bargaining in Poland see Collective bargaining in Poland: a near-death experience by Jan Czarzasty in Collective bargaining in Europe: towards an endgame, edited by Torsten Müller, Kurt Vandaele and Jeremy Waddington, ETUI, 2019

[2] Stan rejestru prowadzonego przez Ministra Rodziny, Pracy i Polityki Społecznej http://www.dialog.gov.pl/dialog-krajowy/uklady-zbiorowe-pracy/stan-rejestru-prowadzonego-przez-ministra-rodziny-pracy-i-polityki-spolecznej/ (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[3] Living and working in Poland, by Jan Czarzasty and Adam Mrozowicki, Eurofound, May 2020 https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/country/poland#actors-and-institutions (Accessed 24.06.20)

[4] Sprawozdanie Głównego Inspektora Pracy z działalności Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy w 2018 roku, p. 304-305. https://www.pip.gov.pl/pl/o-urzedzie/sprawozdania-z-dzialalnosci/104556,sprawozdanie-glownego-inspektora-pracy-z-dzialalnosci-panstwowej-inspekcji-pracy-2018.html (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[5] Sprawozdanie Głównego Inspektora Pracy z działalności Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy w 2014 roku, p. 28 https://www.pip.gov.pl/pl/f/v/133794/sprawozdanie%202014.pdf (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[6] Collective bargaining in Poland: a near-death experience by Jan Czarzasty

[7] Układy zbiorowe w oczach związkowców i polityków,

[8] RDS nie spełnia oczekiwań. Rząd ją ignoruje, a partnerzy społeczni są coraz bardziej skłóceni by Łukasz Guza, Gazeta Prawna, 23.09.2019, https://praca.gazetaprawna.pl/artykuly/1431216,rada-dialogu-spolecznego-solidarnosc-zpp-rzad.html (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[9]On the relation between the collective agreements concluded on different levels see ‚Legal framework for collective labour agreements and other collective agreements in Poland“, by D. Skupień, in Überbetriebliche versus innerbetriebliche Kollektivvereinbarungen, 5. Arbeitsrechtlicher Dialog, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2012, s. 69.

[10] Sprawozdanie Głównego Inspektora Pracy z działalności Państwowej Inspekcji Pracy w 2014 roku, p. 28 https://www.pip.gov.pl/pl/f/v/133794/sprawozdanie%202014.pdf (Accessed 24.06.2020)

Until 2006 unions provided the only legally constituted representation for employees at the workplace. However, legislation implementing the EU directive on information and consultation provides for the creation of works councils, which, following a decision by the constitutional court, must be elected by the whole workforce. However, their influence is limited and most of the works councils that were set up initially have ceased to exist.

Workplace representation in Poland is primarily through the workplace trade union organisations. Under the 1991 Trade Union Act, unions are required to “represent the rights and collective interests of all employees regardless of their trade union membership”. Local unions can be set up with as few as 10 members and a survey by the national statistical office GUS shows that there were 12,200 local union organisations in Poland in 2018 – 9,800 operating in a single company or workplace and 2,400 operating in more than one company.[1]

However, the relatively low level of union membership in Poland means that most employees are in workplaces where there is no union presence. The CBOS survey on union membership published in 2019 (see section on trade unions) found that in September 2019, 18% of respondents were employed in workplaces with one union and 17% in workplaces with more than one. However, 53% were employed in workplaces where there was no union and 12% did not know whether there was a union or not.[2] The CBOS survey identified a major difference between publicly owned institutions and companies, where 77% of respondents reported the presence of at least one union, and purely private companies, where only 12% of respondents said that one or more unions were present. In companies owned jointly by public and private sector bodies the proportion reporting one or more unions was 18%.

An important change in unions’ right to represent workers at the workplace was introduced with a change in the law on trade union which came into effect on 1 January 2019. Workplace unions can now recruit and organise not just employees but also workers on other contracts who have worked for the organisation for six months.

In addition to representation through the local union, legislation introduced in 2006 provided for the establishment of works councils in companies with more than 50 employees. This legislation was introduced to implement the EU directive on providing a national framework for information and consultation (2002/14/EC) and the powers of these works councils are limited to receiving information on economic issues and being consulted on employment and work organisation issues – entirely in line with the directive. The Polish legislation implementing the directive specifically provided that where an existing binding agreement providing a comparable level of information and consultation was in force before the law came into effect, there was no need to set up a works council. However, in other cases the legislation potentially created a new representative structure in Poland.

When first passed, the legislation left the choice of the members of the works council in the hands of the unions. However, following a decision by the Constitutional Court in 2008, that this this breached the right of equal treatment and the right of employees not to join a union, this was changed. The new legislation, which came into force in July 2009 requires the works councils to be elected by the whole workforce (for details see section on elections below.)

In the years immediately after the initial legislation was passed, a large number of works councils were set up, and, by the end of 2009, 3,031 had been established. However, many were not renewed after their first four-year term, and currently there are fewer than 500.[3] Some of the reasons for this sharp fall were identified in a survey of 242 works councils in 2015.[4] This found that in a number of cases, where unions were strong, it was felt that their strength meant that works councils were not necessary; in others it was difficult to find candidates; and in others organisational problems or the limited powers of the works council had led to the works council not being renewed.

Whatever the reason for the fall in the numbers of works councils in Poland, the around 500 which are currently operating represent only a small proportion of the around 19,000 companies in Poland with 50 or more employees, the threshold for setting up a works council.[5] There are no figures on the number of employees covered by works councils.

Other pieces of legislation also refer to the possibility of setting up non-union representative structures. This is the case, for example, of the law on large-scale redundancies passed in 2003. This states that, where there is no union, the right to consultation is given to “representatives of employees appointed in accordance with a procedure adopted by a given employer”. There is a similar procedure where employers are seeking to suspend contractual rights other than those in collective agreements. However, here, in contrast to the situation for works councils, the legislation does not lay down any further rules as to how these representatives should be chosen.

There are also “workers’ councils” in some state-owned enterprises, theoretically with wide powers (see section on board level representation). In practice the main role in these companies is now played by the unions and the number of bodies covered by this legislation continues to fall.[6]

The overall extent of employee representation at the workplace is indicated by the results of Eurofound’s 2013 European Company Survey. These show that, in 2013, around a quarter (24%) of establishments in Poland with at least 10 employees had some form of official employee representation, either through the union, a works council or a similar body in the public sector. This is below the EU28 average of 32%. As elsewhere in Europe, larger organisations were much more likely to have such a structure than smaller ones. The survey shows that 82% of establishments with more than 250 employees had representation, and 61% of those with between 50 and 249 employees. In smaller workplaces in Poland, those with between 10 and 49 employees, the survey indicates that just over one in six (18%) had employee representation.[7]

Numbers and structure

It is up to the union to decide most of the details of its workplace organisation and structure, which are determined by its statutes. However, the legislation does cover the number of union representatives who are released from normal duties and the number of union representatives who enjoy protection against dismissal, based on the number of union members (see below).

The right to set up a works council depends on the number of workers employed. Works councils can be established in all companies and organisations with economic activities with 50 employees or more, other than state-owned companies with workers councils (see above). Different workplaces can be counted together, provided they belong to a single employer. The calculation is based on those working with an employment contract and therefore excludes those working on the basis of civil contracts, who may be doing very similar work. It is a headcount figure – full-time and part-time employees count the same – based on an average over the previous six months, unless the organisation has not existed for that long. Agency workers are not included in the calculation, other than in the agencies where they work.

However, crucially, a works council can only be set up at the written request of at least 10% of the workforce.

The size of the works council depends on the number of employees, as set out below. All works council members are employees.

Number employed	Number of members
50-250	3
251-500	5
More than 500	7

The works council should meet for the first time within 30 days of its election, but otherwise the legislation does not state how often it should meet. The legislation also states that the works council must elect a chair from among its members and draw up its own rules of procedure, but again does not go into details.

In practice, the 2015 survey of works councils, referred to above, found that fewer than a third of works met as often as once a month, while some only met twice a year. They typically reached an agreement with the employer on how they would be informed and consulted.[8]

Tasks and rights

The legislation states that the rights of workplace trade union organisations cover: matters concerning individual employees, employees’ collective rights and interests, the observance of employment law provisions, co-operation with the labour inspectorate and the position of former employees who are now pensioners. Trade unions also have the exclusive right to sign collective agreements and to organise industrial action.

The union’s information rights cover the transfer of the business and actions likely to lead to changes in employment conditions and information relating to working conditions and the rules on pay. For bargaining purposes unions also have rights to information on the economic situation of the business (in particular the information provided to the Central Statistical Office - GUS).

Where there is a danger to health the workplace union organisation can inform the labour inspectorate and ask the employer to act. The employer should respond to the request within 14 days.

Workplace unions, or some other representative body (see above), should be consulted in the case of large-scale redundancies and ideally the employer should reach agreement with them. However, if agreement cannot be reached, the employer should take account “where possible” of the unions’ proposals.

Rules on pay and bonuses should by law be agreed with the unions, as should the rules for payments made from any internal social fund. Changes affecting employment conditions should also be negotiated with the unions, although the employer can act without an agreement after 30 days.

In practice many of these rights are ignored by employers particularly in smaller companies.

The works council’s rights are limited to the information on “recent and probable development of the employer’s activities and economic situation” and information and consultation on “the situation, structure and probable development of employment”, as well as measures planned to maintain staffing levels, together with “measures likely to lead to substantial changes in work organisation”.

Information should be provided in a way and at a time which allows the works council to analyse the information and prepare for consultation. And consultation should take place in “good faith” and with the aim of reaching agreement between the employer and the works council.

This is in line with the EU framework directive on information and consultation but does not go beyond it.

In practice, the 2015 survey finds that information is most frequently provided on the current financial situation of the company (in 85% of cases) and less frequently on expected changes in work organisation, company development strategies and expected changes in employment (all 69%). Only in half the cases (50%) is the works council informed on expected changes in wages. Consultation happens less frequently. In just over half the cases is the works council consulted on changes in work organisation (55%) and expected changes in employment (52%), and even less frequently on rules on remuneration, changes in the company’s structure and company development strategies (all 38%).

These figures may overstate the situation, as it is likely that only the more active works councils responded to the survey.

Election and term of office

The election and term of office of local trade union representatives is not fixed in the legislation and is up to the union to determine. Within NSZZ Solidarność, the term of office is four years.

An election to chose members of the works council must be called by the employer, once 10% of the workforce have requested this

All adult employees, including senior management staff, can vote in the election. However, to stand as a candidate, an employee must have worked for the employer for at least a year, unless the organisation has not existed for that long. Senior management staff, such as the chief accountant and main legal adviser are also prevented from standing. In companies with between 50 and 100 employees, 10 employees must propose the candidates, and in companies with more than 100, the threshold is 20 employees. Unions have no specific nominating rights. The cost of the election is borne by the employer.

In practice, the 2015 survey of works councils indicates that, among those responding, 55% were union members.

The term of office is four years. However, members can be removed from their position on the works council if at least 50% of the workforce with at least six months’ service request this.

Protection against dismissal

Some trade union representatives, who are members of the executive committee of their local union organisation (which must have at least 10 members), have protection against dismissal and a unilateral worsening of their pay and conditions. This cannot take place without the approval of the local union body.

This protection lasts during their period of office and for a maximum of a year afterwards. But the number protected depends on the number of members and whether or not the union is a “representative” trade union in the workplace. A representative trade union in this case is a union that has at least 15% of the employees as members, or 8% if the local union organisation belongs to one of the three nationally representative unions, NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ, or, if no union meets these requirements, is the union with most members among the workers.

Unions must provide the employer with their membership numbers and the 2019 legislation requires unions to provide these more frequently and gives employers the right to ask a court to verify the figures.

For representative unions the number of executive committee members with protection against dismissal are as follows (although the total cannot be larger than the number of members of management):

Fewer than 21 members	2 representatives
21 – 50 members	2 plus 1 per each 10 members
51– 150 members	2 plus 1 per each 20 members
151– 300 members	2 plus 1 per each 30 members
301 – 500 members	2 plus 1 per each 40 members
500 plus members	2 plus 1 per each 50 members

Union that are not representative have the right to have one member of their executive committee protected against dismissal and a worsening of conditions.

There is also specific protection against dismissal when a union is first founded in a workplace. The founding committee can identify three members who have this protection for six months after the founding committee is established.

Finally, protection against dismissal also extends to employees who hold an elected office in the union outside the workplace and who are released from their normal work on a paid or unpaid basis. This lasts during the period of their release from work and for a year afterwards.

In practice there have been a number of cases where trade union representatives have been victimised by employers, because of their position.

Works council members also have protection against discrimination by the employer. They may not be dismissed nor have their pay or conditions unilaterally worsened unless the works council agrees.

Time off and other resources

All employees have a right to be released from normal duties to fulfil their trade union functions, although it is not required that this be paid except where it is a temporary activity which cannot be undertaken outside work time.

In addition, members of the executive committee of a “representative union” at company or workplace level have time off rights as set out in the table below, during their period of office. The trade union can request that this leave is paid.

As with protection against dismissal, a representative union at this level is either a union organisation belonging to one of the three nationally representative unions (NSZZ Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ) with at least 8% of the workforce in membership, or a union organisation outside the three main unions with at least 15% of the workforce in membership, or the largest union in the workplace or company.

The number of individuals entitled to time off and the amount of time off provided both depend on the number of members and the number of individuals is subject to the limit that the total entitled to time off cannot exceed the number of management staff. The details are as follows:

Less than 150 members	1 representative with the same number of hours per month, as there are members
150 – 500 members	1 representative – full-time
501 – 1,000 members	2 representatives– full-time
1,001 – 2,000 members	3 representatives– full-time
2,000 plus members	3 representatives – full-time plus one for each additional 1,000 members

The changes to trade union law, which came into effect in January 2019, allow for collective agreements on time off for trade union duties. However, the practical implications of this are unclear.

The workplace union organisation is also entitled under legislation to “the necessary premises and technical facilities required for carrying out its activities”, although the employer may request payment for this.

Works council members have the right to paid time off to carry out their duties if these cannot be undertaken outside working time and the individual concerned is not already benefiting from other time-off rights.

Works councils also have the right to be assisted by a specialist, although the legislation does not specify who should pay.

Training rights

There are no specific training rights. This is the case both for members of the executive committee of the local union organisation and for members of the works council

Representation at group level

The law allows for unions to be set up which cover several employers, and the executive members of these organisations have protection against dismissal and rights to paid time off on a comparable basis to that provided to local union organisations in a single workplace or company.

However, there is no works council structure above that of a single company.

[1] Partnerzy dialogu społecznego - związki zawodowe i organizacje pracodawców, GUS, 27.08.19 https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/gospodarka-spoleczna-wolontariat/gospodarka-spoleczna-trzeci-sektor/partnerzy-dialogu-spolecznego-zwiazki-zawodowe-i-organizacje-pracodawcow-wyniki-wstepne,16,1.html (Accessed 08.06.2020)

[2] Związki zawodowe w Polsce, Nr 138/2019, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej (CBOS), November 2019 https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2019/K_138_19.PDF (Accessed 07.05.2020)

[3] In fact, there are likely to be fewer than 484. This is the total number of works councils that had been set up from the start of 2016 to 1 April 2020, as published by Department for Dialogue and Social Partnership in the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy. Works councils set up before 2016 would have ceased to exist by April 2020, unless they had been renewed. Dane dotyczace rad pracownikow http://www.dialog.gov.pl/dialog-krajowy/informowanie-i-konsultowanie/rady-pracownikow/ (Accessed 24.06.2020)

[4] The failure of a new form of employee representation: Polish works councils in comparative perspective by Katarzyna Skorupińska, in European Journal of Industrial Relations, 2018, Vol. 24(2) 163– 178

[5] Company numbers for 2017 from Eurostat: Annual enterprise statistics by size class

[6] For further details on workplace representation see i.a. The influence of EU Law on Employees’ Involvement in Poland by Skupien D., in R. Blanpain, M. Tiraboschi (eds) The Global Labour Market: From Globalization to Flexicurity, Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations 65/08. L. Mitrus, Works Councils in Poland: Problems of Informing and Consulting Employees in: Workers’ Representation in Central and Eastern Europe. Challenges and Opportunities for the Works Councils System, ed. R. Blanpain, N. Lyutow, Alphen aan den Rijn 2014.

[7] Eurofound (2015), Third European Company Survey – Overview report: Workplace practices – Patterns, performance and well-being, Figures for Table 44

[8] The failure of a new form of employee representation: Polish works councils in comparative perspective by Katarzyna Skorupińska, in European Journal of Industrial Relations, 2018, Vol. 24(2) 163– 178

There is no right to board-level employee representation in privately owned companies in Poland. However, Polish legislation provides for employee representatives at supervisory board level in companies in the process of being privatised, as well as even greater powers in fully state-owned enterprises.

Poland has undergone a major process of economic restructuring since 1989 with successive governments privatising the bulk of previously state-owned enterprises.

The influence of employees at board or management level reflects the different stages that individual enterprises have reached in that process. In general terms, the more privatisation has advanced, the less the extent of employee involvement at board level. However, the government has in the past stated it was considering reducing or eliminating the involvement of employees at board level, even in some companies that are still owned by the state.

In enterprises which are entirely state-owned, and where the privatisation process has not started, the 1981 Act on workers’ self-management still applies. This provides for 15-member “workers’ councils”, elected by all employees. All employees have a right to nominate members of the workers council and to vote in the elections. However, only employees who have worked there for at least two years can stand as candidates and members of senior management are excluded. The term of office is two years and individuals may not serve for longer than two terms.

These workers councils have substantial powers, at least on paper. These include choosing the manager and the right to object to decisions taken by management – conflicts are solved first through conciliation and then by the labour court. In addition, an assembly of all employees must agree a range of issues, including rules on the operation of the business. However, privatisation and industrial restructuring has greatly reduced the number of companies in this situation and many of those which remain are in severe economic difficulties, substantially reducing the freedom of action for the workers’ councils.[1]

The next group of companies are where the process of privatisation has begun. These enterprises have been transformed into companies, but the state remains the sole or majority shareholder – under the Polish terminology, they are known as commercialised companies. In these cases, employees are entitled to two-fifths of the seats on the supervisory board, and in most circumstances, if the company has more than 500 employees, to a member of the management board as well. (The Polish system provides for supervisory boards in public limited companies to oversee the management board, which runs the company on a day-to-day basis.) The employee representatives on the supervisory board are elected by a secret ballot of all employees. The rules and procedure by which employees choose the member of the management board are determined in the statutes of the company.

The final stage in the process of privatisation is where the state still holds some shares but is no longer the majority shareholder. Here the employees are entitled to around one third of the seats – two seats on a board of six, three where the board has seven to 10 members, and four where the board has more than 10 members. The right to a seat on the management board is maintained in these circumstances.

Employee members of the supervisory board are protected against dismissal or other forms of disadvantage during their period of office and for one year after that.

In all these cases the employee representatives have the same rights as other board members.

Employees have no right to seats on the supervisory boards of companies which are entirely in private ownership and in many cases the completion of the privatisation process resulted in the abolition of employee representation at board level.[2]

[1] For more details see D. Skupien, ‘Board-level employee participation in Polish limited-liability companies’, in Arbeitnehmerbteiligung in Unternehmensorganen im internationalen Vegleich, ed. G. Loeschnigg, Wien 2011

[2] For more information see, for example, Polish Labour Law: From Communism to Democracy, by M. Sewerynski, Warsaw 1999

In most cases the union or unions choose the Polish representatives for the bodies linked to European Works Councils or European Companies. The exception is board members, who are to be elected by all employees.

European Works Councils

Polish members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for an EWC are appointed by the representative union in the company. (A representative union for this purpose is defined as having at least 10% of the employees as members, or 7% if the local union organisation belonged to one of the three nationally representative unions, Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ.) If there is no representative union the members are elected by the workforce in a secret ballot. If there are several representative unions and they cannot agree, the members are elected by the workforce from candidates nominated by the unions. The legislation does not specify whether non-employees may be chosen.

The procedure is the same for Polish members of an EWC appointed under the fallback procedure in the annex to the directive.[1]

European Company

Polish members of the special negotiating body (SNB) for a European Company are appointed by the representative union in the company. (A representative union for this purpose is defined as having at least 10% of the employees as members, or 7% if the local union organisation belonged to one of the three nationally representative unions, Solidarność, OPZZ and FZZ.) If there is no representative union the members are elected by the workforce in a secret ballot. If there are several representative unions and they cannot agree, the members are elected by the workforce from candidates nominated by the unions. The legislation specifically states that trade union representatives who are not employees may be included in the SNB, although it also states that employees must make up a majority of the SNB.

The procedure is the same for Polish members of an SE representative body appointed under the fallback procedure in the annex to the directive, although here they must be employees.

Employee representatives from Poland taking seats on the board under the fall back procedure in the annex to the directive must, in contrast, be elected by secret ballot at a meeting of all employees.

[1] For further details see European Works Councils. Poland, by Dagmara Skupien, in International Encyclopaedia of Laws, Suppl. 319/2007 R. Blanpain (ed.),

Employers should consult with employee representatives, chosen by the union if there is one, on health and safety. In companies with more than 250 employees a joint health and safety committee should be set up, and where a union is present, so-called social labour inspectors can be elected who have extensive powers.

Basic approach at workplace level

The employer is responsible for health and safety at the workplace but should consult with employees or their representatives over all actions connected with health and safety.

Employee health and safety bodies

Employers with more than 250 employees should set up a joint health and safety committee (komisja bezpieczeństwa i higieny pracy – komisja bhp) to provide advice and views on health and safety issues.

In addition, where there is a union organisation at the workplace, employees have the right to elect an employee with particular responsibilities for health and safety, who is known as a social labour inspector (społeczny inspektor pracy – sip). Where there are no unions present this position does not exist.

Numbers and structure

Legislation does not specify the number of members of the health and safety committee. However, it should contain an equal number of representatives of the employer and the employees. The employer’s representatives should include those in the employer’s occupational health service and, where there is one, the doctor providing preventative health services to the employees. The employees’ representatives should include the social labour inspector (sip). Guidance from the National Labour Inspectorate suggests that an effectively functioning health and safety committee should contain 10 to 15 people.[1]

There can be social labour inspectors at the level of the whole company (company social inspectors), at departmental level and within smaller organisational units. There are no set employment thresholds, although the number of employees does affect how they are elected (see below).

Research by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in 2014 found that 26% of workplaces in Poland had health and safety representatives and 17% had a health and safety committee. These figures are both below the EU-28 averages, which are 58% for health and safety representatives and 21% for health and safety committees. (The figures are for workplaces with five or more employees.)[2]

Tasks and rights

In addition to the general obligation on employers to consult employees or their representatives about health and safety, there is a particular requirement to consult them on a number of issues. These are:

• changes in work organisation;
• the introduction of new technological processes and chemical substances, which could be dangerous to health;
• the evaluation of risks;
• the setting up of the occupational health service or its provision by external bodies;
• first aid arrangements, fire precautions, and evacuation procedures;
• the provision of protective equipment, including clothes and shoes; and
• health and safety training for employees.

Employees or their representatives have the right to present proposals to the employer to eliminate or limit workplace hazards. Based on a justified proposal from employees or their representatives related to threats to health and safety, the state labour inspectorate can inspect and impose the appropriate penalties.

Where there is a health and safety committee the rights described above can be transferred to the employee members of this committee. In addition, tasks of the health and safety committee include inspecting working conditions, periodically assessing the state of health and safety, expressing a view on the measures taken by the employer to avoid accidents at work and occupational diseases, formulating proposals to improve working conditions and cooperating with the employer in the carrying out of his or her duties in the area of health and safety.

The tasks and rights of social labour inspectors are more precisely defined and potentially more extensive. They have a right to:

• monitor the state of the buildings, machinery, technical equipment and sanitary facilities from a health and safety perspective;
• monitor compliance with labour laws and collective agreements, in particular in the area of health and safety;
• participate in the monitoring of the compliance in the workplace with laws on the protection of the natural environment;
• participate in determining the causes of accidents at work;
• participate in the analysis of the causes of accidents and occupational diseases and their control through the appropriate preventative measures;
• participate in surveys of working conditions;
• express a view on plans to improve health and safety conditions and monitor the carrying out of those plans; and
• arrange for the active participation of the workforce in creating the appropriate conditions for health and safety.

In carrying out these duties, social labour inspectors have the right to enter the premises at any time and to be given documents relating to the issues they deal with. They should inform the employer where health and safety requirements are not being met and they can ask for employees who do not have the appropriate training to work in a safe manner to be withdrawn from that work. They also have powers to recommend to the employers that specific hazards be removed, and, in the case of a direct threat to workers’ safety and where the employer fails to act, they can require that a particular process or piece of equipment be halted. The ability to request employer to halt a particular process or stop machinery is limited to the company social labour inspector (the most senior), who must communicate the decision to the local trade union organisation. The employer can appeal against the decision to the National Labour Inspectorate.

Social labour inspectors, provided the workplace union organisation agrees, can call on the National Labour Inspectorate to carry out an inspection of the employer and they have the right to participate in that inspection.

Frequency of meetings

Where there is a health and safety committee it should meet at least once every three months.

Election and term of office

Employee representatives on health and safety issues, including those on the health and safety committee, where this exists, are elected by the local union body. Where there is no local union organisation, they are elected by all employees according to workplace procedures.

The rules for the election of social labour inspectors are more detailed. They can be either union members or, if the union chooses this, non-union members, but they may not have a managerial position and they should be experienced – normally at least five years in the industry and two years in the company for the company social labour inspector. In companies or departments with up to 300 employees, both the company social labour inspector and the departmental social labour inspectors are elected by the whole workforce. In large companies and departments, they are elected by the lower level social labour inspectors. In smaller organisational units they are elected directly by the workforce in that unit.

The rules for the elections of social labour inspectors in companies or departments with more than 300 employees are set by the workplace union organisation, although national unions can determine generally applicable rules.

The term of office is four years.

Resources, time off and training

Consultation with employee representatives on health and safety issues should take place in “appropriate conditions” and during working time; employees should be paid. The meetings of the health and safety committee should also take place during working time and employees’ representatives should be paid.

The health and safety committee has the right to make use of an external expert in carrying out its duties, provided this has been agreed with the employer. The cost of the expert is borne by the employer.

The costs of the activity of the social labour inspectors are borne by the employer but in principle their work should take place outside working hours. However, where the activity does take place during working time, they should be paid. In addition, where the duties of social labour inspectors are particularly onerous, they can be for paid for 30 or in some cases 60 hours. In addition in very rare cases where there is a constant and ongoing threat to workers’ health and safety, for example in a steel works, they can be on permanent paid release.

Protection against dismissal

Employee representatives on health and safety issues, including employee members of the health and safety committee, should not be disadvantaged as a result of their health and safety activities.

Social labour inspectors may not be dismissed during their period of office or in the following year without the agreement of the workplace union organisation.

Other elements of workplace health and safety

An employer with more than 100 employees must create an occupational health service (służbą bhp), which has an advisory and monitoring tasks. Small employers (with up to 10 employees or 20 if the health and safety risks are low) can carry these tasks out themselves, provided they have the appropriate training. (Legislation being considered in 2018 is likely to increase this threshold from 20 to 50 in lower risk workplaces.) Employers with fewer than 100 employees can entrust these tasks to an employee, who also has other responsibilities. Those with between 100 and 600 employees must set up an occupational health service with at least one post, although this can be part-time. Those with more than 600 employees must have an occupational health service with at least one full-time post, with an extra full-time post for each additional 600 employees. If an employer does not have any employees with appropriate qualifications to undertake this role, he or she can contract an external body to provide this service.

National context

The ministry responsible for health and safety at work is the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej). The National Labour Inspectorate (Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy – PIP) is the body responsible for ensuring compliance with Poland’s health and safety and general labour laws.

Trade unions and employers are able to influence health and safety policy through their membership of the tripartite Social Dialogue Council (Rada Dialogu Społecznego – RDS), although this is the principal forum for social dialogue, and it deals with a wide range of issues, as well as health and safety.[3]

The Polish Labour Code, the key piece of legislation on health and safety, does not specifically refer to psychosocial risks. However, following an amendment in 2003 it does contain a requirement for an employer to act against bullying at work (Article 94.3).

Key legislation

Labour Code: Section X Work safety and hygiene

Law on Social Labour Inspection 24 June 1983

Kodeks pracy: Dział dziesiaty Bezpieczeństwo i higiena pracy

Ustawa z dnia 24 czerwca 1983 r. o społecznej inspekcji pracy

[1] Poradnik społecznego inspektora pracy, by Tomasz Rutkowski, Państwowa Inspekcja Pracy, 2006

[2] Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2016

[3] For more information on the national context see OSH system at national level – Poland by Małgorzata Pęciłło , OSH Wiki https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/OSH_system_at_national_level_-_Poland

Trade Unions

• FZZ - Trade Unions’ Forum
• NSZZ Solidarnosc (En)
• OPZZ - All-Poland Alliance of Trade Unions (En)

Employers

• Business Centre Club
• Pracodawcy RP - Employers of Poland (En)
• PKPP LEWIATAN - Polish Confederation of Private Employers Lewiatan (En)
• Związek Rzemiosła Polskiego (Polish Craft Association) (En)

Government

• Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (En)
• MPiPS - Centrum Partnerstwa Społecznego „Dialog” (Social Partership Centre „Dialogue”)