A second version of the draft act on strengthening the application of the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women[1] has now been published. It refines procedures and deadlines and introduces a new supervisory body.
Even a cursory glance at the two drafts shows that the new version is considerably longer than its predecessor of 12 December 2025, running to 74 articles compared with the previous 59.
We have already discussed the changes affecting the recruitment stage and the three pillars of the forthcoming pay transparency framework, noting that Poland will miss the EU transposition deadline of 7 June 2026. You can read more about this here: https://www.kochanski.pl/en/new-pay-transparency-rules-are-now-in-the-labour-code/
Below, we take a closer look at the further changes, new developments and risks that have emerged in the latest, April version of the draft.
Six months from publication – is that long enough?
Rather than 7 June 2026, the new rules are to take effect six months after publication in the Journal of Laws. Experts, however, are unanimous: this is still not enough – instead, businesses have been calling for a 12-month vacatio legis.
The equality body: not the PIP, but a new Commission – and the controversy surrounding it
The designated equality body will be an independent Commission for Combating Discrimination in Employment, and will comprise six members, including the Chief Labour Inspector, who will serve as chair. The Commission will have broad powers, including to:
- request explanations from employers;
- access the files of administrative and court cases;
- initiate civil and criminal proceedings;
- commission expert reports and opinions; and
- join any pending proceedings, exercising the procedural rights of a public prosecutor.
Deadlock in trade union negotiations – a stopgap mechanism, not employer autonomy
The draft does not give employers the right to set job evaluation criteria on their own – the mechanism operates in two stages.
If negotiations with trade unions cannot be concluded within 30 days, the employer will temporarily apply the mandatory criteria (skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions) while negotiations continue. The employer has five days to notify the competent district labour inspector both of the failure to conclude and of the conclusion of negotiations – and thus the National Labour Inspectorate will therefore be monitoring the status of negotiations on an ongoing basis.
At the stage of job classification and establishment of worker categories – where agreement with the trade unions has proven impossible – the employer will act independently, having first considered the views of the trade union organisations.
Joint pay assessment: new deadlines and protection for parents
The joint pay assessment must include an analysis of the proportion of female and male workers who benefited from a pay rise following their return from parental leave, requiring the employer to therefore check whether workers returning from leave were overlooked when pay rises were awarded during their absence.
The new draft introduces specific deadlines:
- Remedial action to address an unjustified pay gap: by 30 September
- Verification of the conditions triggering a joint pay assessment: by 31 October
- The joint pay assessment itself: by 30 November
The employer has 10 months to implement the remedial measures resulting from the joint pay assessment (the previous draft provided for 8 months).
Intersectional discrimination: a new risk beyond pay statistics
The definition of intersectional discrimination has been significantly expanded – it now covers not only direct but also indirect discrimination: situations in which an apparently neutral provision or criterion causes disadvantageous disparities for a group distinguished on the ground of sex in combination with another characteristic, unless this is objectively justified. In court proceedings, intersectional discrimination is treated as an aggravating circumstance.
A new risk: the pay gap and access to public procurement and concessions
This is another entirely new measure.
A contractor may be excluded from a public procurement procedure if, in any category of workers, it has a pay gap exceeding 5% that is not justified by objective criteria. A contractor will not be subject to exclusion if, within six months of submitting its report, it eliminates or justifies the pay gap. The mechanism is, however, discretionary – the contracting authority is entitled, but not obliged, to apply the exclusion. That said, for businesses that regularly bid for public contracts, this represents a new and very tangible commercial risk.
Transparency yes, but not at the expense of privacy – new data protection procedures
The data protection provisions have also been significantly expanded, growing from three articles in the previous version to six. The new rules establish detailed procedures for situations where disclosing pay information could lead to the identification of a specific worker’s remuneration. In such cases, the employer must inform the worker that the data cannot be communicated directly and point out the option of seeking assistance from the equality body or a workplace trade union organisation, which will advise the worker on any potential claims without disclosing individual employees’ actual pay levels.
Higher fines, pay gap formulas and annual work units
The penalty ranges have also increased compared with the previous version of the draft.
Breaching the obligations arising from the pay transparency provisions will carry a fine of between PLN 2,000 and PLN 60,000. The list of petty offences has been expanded to include, among other things, failing to inform trade union organisations of the results of the job evaluation, and failing to carry out job classification.
Where an employer has breached its pay transparency obligations, the burden of proving that it acted on objective grounds will rest with the employer – even if the worker has not substantiated their claim of direct or indirect discrimination. Failing to respond to a request or failing to submit a pay gap report may be enough to require the employer to prove in court that it does not discriminate against its workers.
Deadlines for explanations and remedial action
The draft retains the 30-day deadline for providing workers with information on their pay level, specifying that the response can be given in either paper or electronic form.
The new draft also extends the scope of information that workers can request to include their individual hourly pay level and average hourly pay levels broken down by sex. Pay levels are calculated for the 12-month period for which remuneration was paid, preceding the month in which the request is submitted. Employers are also required to inform workers annually of their right to request information on their individual pay level and hourly pay level, as well as average pay levels.
Authorised entities may request additional, detailed explanations from the employer regarding the pay gap report. The employer has 30 days to respond. If the explanations reveal that the pay differences are not justified by objective, neutral criteria, the employer must take effective remedial action within no more than 8 months.
Three-year limitation period for claims
Claims[2] become time-barred upon the expiry of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware (or, exercising due care, could have become aware) of a breach of the principle of equal treatment in employment or of the data protection provisions.
The limitation period is interrupted by:
- Any action taken before a competent body established to resolve disputes, whether directly or through worker representatives, a labour inspector or the equality body
- Acknowledgement of the claim by the employer
- Filing a complaint with the employer in respect of a claim arising from a breach of the principle of equal treatment
Groups of companies: the ‘single source’ concept
The assessment of whether workers of both sexes perform the same work or work of equal value is not limited to cases in which they work for the same employer. It also extends to situations in which different employers rely on a single source that establishes pay conditions relevant for comparing workers’ situations.
A single source exists where pay conditions are established jointly with, or independently of, the employer for more than one organisation or undertaking, in particular in the form of:
- Universally applicable legislation
- Collective agreements, or
- Internal regulations binding within a group of companies, a group of undertakings or a group of entrepreneurs conducting joint business activity
The assessment of whether a single source exists is made by the court or other body before which the allegation of discrimination has been raised. This is a new provision introduced by the second draft – the December version dealt only with the concept of a single source itself, without specifying which body was competent to carry out the assessment.
How to prepare – an updated action list
- Review and update your job evaluation process
- Prepare for a deadlock with trade unions
- Assess your public procurement risk exposure
- Examine your pay-rise policy for employees returning from parental leave
- Review your criteria for promotions and access to training for intersectional discrimination risks
- Remove pay secrecy clauses from employment contracts and internal policies
- Determine whether your organisation qualifies as a ‘single source’
- Plan your budget for HR and payroll services
Want to check whether your pay system is ready? We can carry out an audit, assess your procurement-related risk and help you plan the implementation of the new obligations.
Have questions? Contact us
[1] No. UC127
[2] Arising from Section I, Chapter IIa and Articles 22¹–221b of the Labour Code
