An inspection of employment lawfulness has one feature that consistently surprises employers: it happens largely on paper.
Nobody asks whether the company acted in good faith. Nobody assesses the relationship with the employee. What is examined is whether the file is complete, current, and internally consistent. Gaps in the file are not a formality — they are the basis of the findings.
The good news is that the list is finite and can be worked through in an afternoon.
Layer one: identity and residence
A copy of a valid travel document. The photo and data page. Check the passport expiry date — a passport expiring before the permit is a problem that resurfaces later.
A document confirming the basis of stay. Not the same as the passport. A national visa, residence card, decision, or confirmation of a filed application with the stamp. A specific document, on a specific basis, with a specific expiry date.
Evidence that the copy was taken before the person was admitted to work. The obligation to verify the residence document before work begins is firm — and demonstrating compliance rests on the copy existing in the file and being dated.
Layer two: authorisation to work
The document legalising work — depending on the route: a work permit issued by the regional governor, a declaration entered in the register, confirmation of a notification, or a decision granting a single permit.
Evidence of the ground for exemption, where work is performed without a permit. An exemption has to be capable of being demonstrated. “They don’t need one, because…” is not a document.
The district governor’s statement, where the route required one.
Layer three: employment
A written contract, concluded before the person was admitted to work.
A translation of the contract into a language the employee understands, provided before signing.
Registration for social insurance within the required deadline.
A medical certificate from pre-employment checks.
A health and safety training record — delivered in a way that allowed the content to be understood. This last point is challenged more often than employers expect.
Confirmations of notifications regarding commencement and termination of work, and changes to conditions.
Consistency — what gets checked first
A complete set of documents is not enough if the documents contradict one another. An inspection compares the permit against the contract, and the contract against what is actually happening.
The main points of comparison:
Position. What the permit says, what the contract says — and what the person actually does.
Pay. Not lower than the level stated in the permit. A reduction introduced a year later without updating the document is a problem.
Working hours. Moving from full-time to part-time is a change of conditions.
The entity entrusting the work. The permit names a specific company. Work for another entity in the same group is a different legal position.
Place of work, where it was specified.
A divergence between the permit and reality is not “an out-of-date piece of paper.” In practice it means work performed outside the scope of the authorisation held.
What gets forgotten most often
Expiry dates in one place. Not a document — a mechanism. If the dates exist only inside individual files, nobody sees them coming. What is needed is a single list of every date for every person, and somebody who looks at it regularly.
Updating after a change. A promotion, a pay rise, a move to another department, a change in hours — each should trigger a question about the documents. It usually does not, because it travels the HR route rather than the immigration route.
Documents spread across locations. In multi-site companies, part of the file sits at head office and part on site. During an inspection it emerges that nobody holds the complete set.
The contract translation. The single most forgotten item on this list.
Retention after employment ends. The obligation to retain documents does not stop with the contract.
How to check your own files
Build a table. One row per person, columns matching the list above. Fill it in by looking at documents, not from memory.
Three things will almost certainly surface:
For some people it will not be clear on what basis they are in Poland — the entry will be “has documents” rather than a specific basis.
For some there will be no match between the role in the contract and the role in the permit, because somebody was promoted along the way.
For some, the dates will be closer than anyone thought.
Each of those is fixable while you are the one finding it. After an inspection, remediation looks different.
The exposure
Entrusting work without the required authorisation carries a fine, and a labour inspector may impose a penalty on the spot without going to court.
The mechanism matters more than the ceiling. Penalties attach to the person, not to the inspection. Gaps in five files are five separate matters.
There is also a consequence not written in any statute: a company with inspection findings against it stays within the authorities’ field of view for longer than a single day.
Obligations, retention periods and penalty levels change. Verify the current position on a specific case.
Start with one file
Pick a single file — ideally the longest-serving employee, because that is where changes accumulate.
Check three things: is there a document confirming the basis of stay, does the role in the contract match the role in the permit, and when does each of those two documents expire?
If something does not add up in that one file, the same is probably true of the others. If it does add up, you have a reference point for the rest.
Would rather not do this yourself? Get in touch — we can review the files and tell you plainly what needs correcting.