Courier's mandate contract vs. employment relationship — lessons from the Labour Inspectorate and ZUS inspection at Pyszne.pl

The high-profile case of the announced dismissal of about 5,000 Pyszne.pl couriers and the inspections launched by the National Labour Inspectorate and ZUS clearly illustrates one of the most common traps of the delivery market: a contract labelled a "mandate" is not always a civil-law contract in the eyes of the law. If the work actually has the features of employment, it may be recognised as an employment relationship — with all the consequences that entails for the company and for the courier. In the delivery sector a very large share of couriers are foreigners, which is why this topic directly affects the legality of their work and stay. Below we explain the legal basis, possible scenarios and risks.

1. What happened — the Labour Inspectorate and ZUS inspection at Pyszne.pl

The company operating under the Pyszne.pl brand announced to couriers the termination of their existing contracts (concluded as civil-law contracts) and offered re-employment with selected "fleet partners", reportedly on less favourable terms (including without a guaranteed hourly rate). In response, the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy applied to the Chief Labour Inspector for an urgent inspection of the basis of the couriers' employment, and ZUS also launched inspection activities — regarding the correctness of the insurance title. The Labour Inspectorate leadership announced that, where justified, it would seek to convert civil-law contracts into employment contracts, and that termination of a contract during an inspection would not block the finding of an employment relationship.

2. When a "mandate" is in fact an employment relationship (Art. 22 of the Labour Code)

The key provision is Art. 22 of the Labour Code. Under Art. 22 § 1 of the Labour Code, by establishing an employment relationship the employee undertakes to perform work of a specified type for the employer and under the employer's direction, at a place and time designated by the employer, and the employer undertakes to employ the worker for remuneration. Art. 22 § 1¹ of the Labour Code provides that employment under such conditions is employment on the basis of an employment relationship regardless of the name of the contract concluded by the parties. Art. 22 § 1² of the Labour Code prohibits replacing an employment contract with a civil-law contract while maintaining the conditions of work characteristic of an employment relationship.

It is therefore the actual manner of performing the work, not the title of the document, that determines the classification. Labour court case-law identifies features indicating an employment relationship: subordination to instructions (direction), a designated place and time of work, personal performance of the work, continuity and repetitiveness, and risk borne by the employer. In the courier model, factors such as the imposition of schedules/zones, a system of penalties and bonuses, and control via an app are often significant. The assessment is always individual — which is why the same scheme at two companies may be assessed differently.

3. Consequences of reclassification: collective redundancies, contributions, courses of action

If it turns out that the couriers should have been employed under an employment contract, the protective mechanisms of labour law come into play. Below are the most important scenarios and the courses such a case usually takes:

• Establishing the existence of an employment relationship — an employee (or former contractor) may bring an action to establish the existence of an employment relationship (Art. 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with Art. 22 of the Labour Code); such an action may also be brought by a labour inspector (Art. 63¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure).
• Labour Inspectorate action — an inspector may issue a demand/order to remedy the violations. The legislator is expanding the Labour Inspectorate's powers towards converting civil-law contracts into employment contracts; the scope and procedure (including any administrative decision) should be verified against the current wording of the Act on the National Labour Inspectorate, as the provisions in this area have been amended.
• Collective redundancies — if the couriers were employees, the Act of 13 March 2003 on the specific rules for terminating employment relationships with employees for reasons not attributable to the employees would apply to mass dismissals (including the obligation to consult trade unions and pay severance).
• ZUS contributions — ZUS may determine the proper insurance title; if irregularities are found, it may claim overdue contributions retroactively (the limitation period for contribution claims is generally 5 years).

4. What it means for foreign couriers — risk assessment

For a courier who is a foreigner, the matter has an additional dimension — the legality of work and stay. The basis and conditions of performing work (type of contract, position, remuneration, working time) are usually reflected in the document legalising the work (declaration on entrusting work, work permit, single permit for residence and work). A change in the employment model — e.g. moving from a "mandate" to an employment contract or transfer to another entity (a "fleet partner") — may require updating these documents.

Key risks and recommendations:

• Change of employer/entity — if the courier is to be employed by an entrepreneur other than the one indicated in the legalisation document, a new basis for legalising the work is often required; work outside its scope risks an allegation of illegal entrustment/performance of work.
• Change of conditions — reducing the remuneration or changing the working time below the conditions entered in the permit may require an amendment of the permit; it is worth checking this before signing a new contract.
• Reclassification into an employment contract — is generally beneficial (labour-law protection, contributions, seniority), but affects settlements and formalities; it should not deprive the foreigner of a legal basis for work, provided the documents are properly updated.

The risk assessment is individual and depends on the residence title held, the content of the document legalising the work and the details of the new contract. Before accepting a "re-employment" offer, it is worth consulting the specific terms with a lawyer so as not to lose the legality of work or waive the claims to which you are entitled.