Training (retention) agreement in Poland – when must training costs be reimbursed?

An agreement on the improvement of an employee’s professional qualifications, also referred to in practice as a loyalty agreement or training agreement, is one of the most commonly used tools in employment relations in Poland. It serves to link the employer’s investment in the employee’s development with an obligation to remain in employment for a specified period.

This institution is regulated in detail in Articles 103¹–103⁵ of the Polish Labour Code. The regulation is semi-mandatory in nature, meaning that the legislator has set certain limits on contractual freedom within the Polish Labour Code, which cannot be modified by the employer to the detriment of the employee. In practice, this means that every training agreement with an employee must be assessed not only in terms of its literal wording, but above all in terms of its compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Polish Labour Code and their protective function vis-à-vis the employee.

This publication presents a comprehensive analysis of the institution of the agreement on the improvement of an employee’s professional qualifications, with particular emphasis on its legal basis, permissible contractual structures and the limits of the parties’ freedom in shaping duties of loyalty, and discusses the grounds for the obligation to reimburse costs incurred by the employer, the method of calculating such costs, and the most common interpretative issues arising in the practical application of the provisions of the Polish Labour Code.

Improving professional qualifications – what does this mean under the Polish Labour Code?

In linguistic terms, ‘knowledge’ refers to the body of information acquired through study and experience, whilst ‘skills’ denote the practical ability to apply that knowledge in practice. Legal doctrine indicates that, under Polish labour law, both these elements constitute the concept of an employee’s professional qualifications, the improvement of which may form the subject of an obligation under a loyalty agreement (see: A. Sobczyk (ed.), Labour Code. Commentary, 7th ed., 2025).

In practice, the subject of an agreement on the improvement of professional qualifications may be either complete educational processes (e.g. degree courses, courses, training) or specific stages thereof. There is no obstacle to the employer’s consent or referral for training relating only to part of the educational process, and consequently the loyalty agreement itself may regulate the rights and obligations of the parties exclusively in this respect. It is, however, essential that the relevant provisions in this regard are included in the text of the agreement.

It is also permissible for the agreement to cover the period of skills development preceding its conclusion. However, such an arrangement only makes legal sense if the employer provides the employee with additional benefits for that period (e.g. reimbursement of tuition fees). Otherwise, it would be difficult to justify the imposition of loyalty obligations on the employee.

Do the regulations on professional development apply only to employees or also to job applicants?

The provision applies exclusively to the employment relationship, i.e. the relationship between an employer and an employee governed by the Polish Labour Code, excluding the recruitment stage, i.e. the relationship between an employer and a job applicant. Consequently, agreements concluded with candidates for the purpose of improving professional qualifications prior to the establishment of an employment relationship fall outside the scope of the Polish Labour Code.

However, it does not appear that this means the employer has complete discretion in drafting a contract for the improvement of professional qualifications with a prospective employee. The content of such contracts will, in fact, be subject to assessment:

• the principles of social coexistence, i.e. Article 5 of the Polish Civil Code, according to which one may not exercise a right in a manner that would be contrary to the socio-economic purpose of that right or to the principles of social coexistence; and

• the limits on freedom of contract set out in Article 353¹ of the Polish Civil Code, according to which the parties entering into a contract may structure the legal relationship at their discretion, provided that its content or purpose does not conflict with the nature of the relationship, the law or the principles of social coexistence.

In practice, this leads to the conclusion that provisions which grossly deviate from the standards of social coexistence—and therefore, in particular, those which, for example, provide for an excessively long period for ‘working off’ the costs of training—may be deemed invalid.

In what form should a loyalty agreement be concluded?

Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 103⁴(1) of the Polish Labour Code, an agreement on the improvement of professional qualifications (a loyalty agreement) should be concluded in writing. However, this provision does not provide for the agreement to be null and void if this form is not observed, which in practice means that it serves as a reservation for evidential purposes. Consequently, where a loyalty agreementis concluded orally, it generally remains valid.

Of course, in the event of a dispute as to whether the agreement was actually concluded, and if so, what the parties’ obligations are, in Polish labour law cases, evidence from witnesses and from the examination of the parties is, as a rule, admissible, even if the written form has not been observed. Consequently, although the written form is not a condition for the validity of a loyalty agreement, adhering to it has significant practical importance – primarily for evidential purposes and to clearly define the rights and obligations of the parties.

What should a professional development agreement contain?

A professional development agreement should, first and foremost:

1. clearly identify the parties to the legal relationship, namely the employer and the employee,
2. specify the subject matter of the agreement, i.e. indicate the specific form of training for the employee that will be funded or co-funded by the employer. In practice, this should include as many details as possible regarding the training, not only the name of the training, course or studies, but also, where possible at the time of concluding the contract, the organiser’s details, the substantive scope of the training, the schedule, and the amount and structure of the costs,
3. specify the benefits granted by the employer in connection with the improvement of qualifications. Benefits may include, in particular, the financing of tuition fees or training costs, the payment of examination fees, the provision of training leave or exemption from certain work duties, as well as other additional benefits which do not automatically arise from Polish labour law provisions but have been granted to the employee in connection with the implementation of the training process,
4. the employee’s obligations, which should be defined in a manner appropriate to the nature of the training. These generally include the obligation to participate in the training process, to undertake it diligently, to keep the employer informed of the progress of the training, and any obligation to reimburse costs in the cases provided for in the Polish Labour Code, as discussed below,
5. the loyalty period, i.e. the period during which the employee undertakes to remain in employment following the completion of their skills development. This period may not exceed three years and should be calculated from the end of the training process, as it is only then that the obligation to remain in employment in order to ‘repay’ the employer’s benefits comes into effect.

The agreement should be supplemented by organisational and technical provisions, such as the method of documenting costs incurred, the timing of their settlement, and the rules of communication between the parties. The structure of the training agreement must strictly comply with Polish labour law provisions, which in this respect are semi-mandatory and set the limits of the parties’ contractual freedom.

When must an employee reimburse the employer for training costs?

In practice, situations often arise where an employee undergoes training funded by the employer, followed by the termination of employment or a breach of the parties’ agreements. However, it remains crucial for both the employee and the employer that the obligation to reimburse costs does not arise automatically, but only where specific statutory conditions are met.

These situations are governed by Section 103⁵ of the Polish Labour Code, according to which an employee undertaking professional development:

• who, without valid reasons, fails to undertake professional development or discontinues such development,

• whose employment contract is terminated by the employer without notice due to the employee’s fault, whilst the employee is undergoing professional development or after its completion, within the period specified in the agreement referred to in Article 103⁴, which shall not exceed 3 years,

• who, during the period specified in point 2, terminates the employment relationship by giving notice, except where the employment contract is terminated for the reasons specified in Article 94³,

• who, during the period specified in point 2, terminates the employment relationship without notice pursuant to Article 55 or Article 943, despite the absence of the grounds specified in those provisions

– is obliged to reimburse the employer for the costs incurred for this purpose in respect of additional benefits, in an amount proportional to the period of employment following the completion of professional development or the period of employment during which such development took place.

Naturally, the employer may only claim reimbursement of costs that have actually been incurred. This means that it is not sufficient merely to specify them in the contract; rather, in the event of a dispute as to whether the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer, the employer will be required to demonstrate them during the proceedings.

A practical example from Polish case law:

“(…) since the Polish Labour Code refers to the employee’s obligation to reimburse costs incurred by the employer, a contractual provision cannot impose on the employee an obligation to reimburse costs which were not in fact incurred by the employer, but merely agreed upon in the contract” (judgment of the Polish Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, 3rd Labour and Social Security Division, dated 13 December 2017, ref. no. III APa 19/17).

Below, we will address the specific situations set out in the above provisions.

An employee’s failure to undertake or discontinuation of skills development

In practice, it may happen that an employee fails to undertake or discontinues professional skills development. Naturally, ‘discontinuation’ should be understood as the definitive termination of the training process before its completion, rather than a temporary break, provided such a break is permissible under the relevant study programme.

It appears that the absence of objective or justifiable grounds on the part of the employee for failing to undertake or discontinuing the upskilling process may be of key importance. Justifiable reasons may include, for example:

• objective obstacles (e.g. the closure of a course of study or a training institution),
• unforeseeable circumstances (e.g. a significant deterioration in health, exceptional family circumstances).

In such cases, the employee will, as a rule, not be obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer.

However, if an employee has failed to undertake or has discontinued further training solely through their own fault – in particular due to a change of mind, a lack of motivation or a decision to discontinue further education – the employer will, as a general rule, be entitled to claim reimbursement of the costs incurred.

Importantly, however, a prerequisite for the employer to effectively pursue a claim in this situation is ensuring that the employee is aware of the scope and value of the additional benefits granted. In practice, this should be achieved by entering into a contract or (at the very least) by clearly informing the employee of these benefits. A lack of transparency in this regard may undermine the validity of the employer’s claims (see the Polish Supreme Court judgment of 6 September 2023, I PSKP 3/23).

Termination of the employment relationship without notice due to the employee’s fault

The obligation to reimburse the training costs incurred by the employer also arises where the employer terminates the employment relationship with the employee without notice due to the employee’s fault (i.e. on disciplinary grounds). This situation may arise both whilst the employee is improving their professional qualifications and after the training has ended – provided this occurs within the period specified in the training agreement, but not exceeding 3 years.

The parties may therefore stipulate a so-called loyalty period (a ‘working-off’ period) in a contract for professional development, during which termination of the contract on disciplinary grounds will result in an obligation to reimburse the costs of the training. However, this period must be structured in a proportionate manner and in accordance with the protective function of Polish labour law. Provisions providing for a longer period will therefore be ineffective insofar as they exceed 3 years.

Consequently, if the employment relationship is terminated after the expiry of this maximum period, the employer loses the basis for claiming reimbursement of training costs, even if the loyalty agreement formally provided for a longer term. This is a very significant limitation which employers should bear in mind in every case.

Of course, the key factor will be whether the employee’s conduct justifying immediate termination was culpable or not. For the employer to be able to claim reimbursement of training costs, it will not be sufficient that the employment relationship has been terminated. The provision applies only to cases of serious breach of fundamental employment obligations.

In practice, this means that if an employee commits a serious breach of their employment duties (e.g. breach of the duty of loyalty, acting to the detriment of the employer, or unjustified absence of a serious nature), they must expect not only the termination of their employment contract on disciplinary grounds, but also the obligation to reimburse the employer for the costs incurred in their training.

Termination of the employment relationship by the employee with notice during the ‘working-out period’ (except for termination caused by workplace bullying)

The obligation to reimburse additional benefits also arises where an employee terminates the employment relationship by giving notice during the so-called ‘working-out period’, i.e. during the period specified in the training agreement (however, as indicated above, not longer than 3 years from the completion of the skills enhancement).

The key point here is that the initiative to terminate the employment relationship must come from the employee (and not the employer). The Polish Labour Code treats such a decision as a resignation from continuing employment, despite the employee having previously benefited from the employer’s support in the form of training funding.

However, a significant exception applies where the termination is due to workplace bullying suffered by the employee at the hands of the employer (Section 94³ of the Polish Labour Code). In such a case, the employee is not obliged to reimburse the costs of training, even if they are technically in breach of the loyalty period. This does not, however, automatically exempt them from the obligation to reimburse. Proving the existence of workplace bullying is of key importance. It will therefore not be sufficient for the employee merely to allege bullying; rather, they must prove that persistent and long-term harassment or intimidation of the employee actually took place in the workplace, which justified the termination of the employment contract. The burden of proof in this regard naturally rests with the employee. Only a successful demonstration of the grounds for mobbing allows the obligation to reimburse additional benefits to be waived, even if the termination took place during the ‘working off’ period.

Termination of the employment relationship by the employee without notice (Article 55 or Article 94³ of the Polish Labour Code), despite the absence of grounds justifying such a method of termination

The obligation to reimburse additional benefits may also arise where an employee terminates the employment relationship without notice under Article 55 or Article 94³ of the Polish Labour Code, but only where there are no genuine grounds justifying the use of this procedure.

In other words, the mere fact that an employee decides to terminate their employmentimmediately does not in itself give rise to an obligation to reimburse. What will be of key importance, however, is the assessment of whether there were statutory grounds for the employee to terminate the contract ‘without notice’. Of course, as indicated above, in the event of a dispute as to whether such grounds existed or not, the labour court will decide on a case-by-case basis.

Section 55 of the Polish Labour Code covers two separate grounds for the termination of an employment contract without notice by the employee, namely:

1. firstly, the situation set out in § 1, in which an employee may terminate the contract if a medical certificate is issued stating that the work performed is harmful to their health, and the employer fails to transfer them, within the time limit specified in that certificate, to other work appropriate to their state of health and professional qualifications,
2. a situation where the employer has committed a serious breach of their fundamental obligations towards the employee, i.e. for example, persistently or grossly failing to pay wages on time, or failing to ensure safe and hygienic working conditions (e.g. ignoring obvious health and safety hazards).

When can an employer not demand reimbursement of training costs from an employee?

The list of circumstances in which an employee may be required to reimburse the costs of professional development is exhaustive. This means that an employer cannot successfully claim reimbursement of such costs in situations not specified in the Polish Labour Code, even if the employment relationship is terminated during the so-called ‘reimbursement period’.

Consequently, the obligation to reimburse does not arise, for example, in the event of termination of the employment contract:

1. by mutual agreement between the employee and the employer,
2. by way of notice given by the employer, including where the reason for termination lies with the employee,
3. under Article 53 of the Polish Labour Code, i.e. without notice by the employer through no fault of the employee,
4. upon expiry of the fixed-term employment contract,
5. under specific statutory procedures, including in the event of the transfer of the workplace or part thereof to another employer (Article 231(4) of the Polish Labour Code), in which case the employee may terminate the contract with seven days’ notice.

The exhaustive nature of this list means that any other instances of termination of employment not specified in the provision cannot serve as grounds for claiming reimbursement of training costs, regardless of the economic assessment of the situation or the subjective assessment of the conduct of the parties to the employment relationship. Including provisions in a training contract obliging the employee to reimburse additional training costs even in the situations listed above would therefore be contrary to the Polish Labour Code.

The post-training service period – how is it calculated?

The post-training service period, i.e. the period during which the employee is obliged to remain in employment after completing professional development, is subject to strict rules under Article 103⁴ of the Polish Labour Code and may last for a maximum of 3 years from the end of the training. This is a period relating to the duration of the employment relationship, and not solely to the actual performance of work, which means that, as a rule, it covers the entire time spent in employment, regardless of whether the employee is performing work during that period.

Consequently, the period of service also includes periods during which no work is performed, provided the employment relationship continues, in particular such as: annual leave, maternity leave, parental leave or childcare leave, as well as periods of incapacity for work due to illness. This is because these are periods during which the employment relationship remains in force and is neither terminated nor suspended in terms of its existence.

At the same time, the employer cannot exclude specific periods of employment from the period of service, such as periods of parental or maternity leave, as this would be contrary to Article 103⁴(2) of the Polish Labour Code and the statutory structure of this obligation.

However, periods during which the employment relationship is not in force, for example due to unpaid leave, should be assessed differently – in accordance with the established case law of the Supreme Court, such periods are not included in the period of service. In this regard, it is accepted that there are no grounds for treating such a period as ‘employment’ within the meaning of the provisions governing the duty of loyalty.

It is also worth noting that the Polish Supreme Court permits, in certain situations, the inclusion of work performed under civil law contracts in the period of service, provided that such work actually serves the purpose of continuing the cooperation after the completion of training; however, this does not alter the fundamental principle that the existence of an employment relationship remains the point of reference.

A practical example from Polish case law:

“A period of unpaid leave cannot be treated as a period worked in connection with receiving funding from the employer for the improvement of employees’ qualifications” (judgment of the Polish Supreme Court of 13 September 2010, ref. no. II PK 257/09).

How should the reimbursement of costs incurred by the employer be calculated?

The reimbursement of costs incurred by the employer should be calculated as a proportionate share of the additional benefits funded in connection with the improvement of professional qualifications, corresponding to the period of the unfulfilled obligation to remain in employment after the completion of studies or to the period of employment falling within the duration of such studies.

The Polish Labour Code does not specify a method for determining this proportion; in particular, it does not require periods of employment to be rounded up to full months, so it is correct to use a calculation based on the number of days. The period of employment includes all periods of remaining in the employment relationship, including holidays and other justified absences. The basis for the settlement is gross amounts, taking into account both benefits already paid and those which the employer is yet to pay, for example fees to the entity conducting the training.

Summary

A professional development agreement (known as a training or loyalty agreement) is a Polish labour law instrument designed to safeguard the interests of an employer financing an employee’s development. Its structure is based on Articles 103¹–103⁵ of the Polish Labour Code and is subject to significant restrictions arising from the protective function of Polish labour law.

These provisions strike a balance between the employer’s interests (recovering the investment in training) and protecting the employee from excessive loyalty obligations. It is crucial to note that the obligation to reimburse training costs does not arise automatically, but only in cases strictly specified in the Act. The list of such situations is exhaustive and cannot be extended by agreement.

Consequently, a training agreement is a tool with limited contractual freedom, requiring strict compliance with the provisions of the Polish Labour Code and careful drafting of its terms, particularly regarding loyalty obligations and the cost reimbursement mechanism.