The Biedronka No-Poach Decision and Hiring Restrictions in Poland

In September 2026, the President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, UOKiK, imposed fines totalling PLN 571,960,550 on Jeronimo Martins Polska, 29 transport companies and eight individuals for an agreement restricting competition for drivers.
 
The largest fine, PLN 525,535,050, was imposed on Jeronimo Martins Polska, the owner of Biedronka. The decision is not final and may be appealed.
 
The case confirms that competition law applies to recruitment practices, including arrangements between suppliers serving the same customer.
 
How the arrangement operated?
 
According to UOKiK, carriers serving Biedronka distribution centres agreed not to recruit drivers employed by other carriers participating in the arrangement.

A driver who wanted to move between carriers was expected to obtain the employer’s consent. Without that consent, the driver could not work at the relevant distribution centre until a waiting period had expired. Depending on the centre, this lasted several months.

A carrier could therefore employ the driver but could not use that person at the distribution centre.

UOKiK stated that the arrangement operated from June 2017 until at least February 2024, when the authority conducted searches.
 
Why Jeronimo Martins Polska was fined?
 
Jeronimo Martins Polska was not the drivers’ employer. Its role was central to UOKiK’s assessment.

According to the authority, the company organised the arrangement, exchanged information between carriers and enforced the rules. It controlled access to distribution centres and prevented drivers who changed employers contrary to the arrangement from entering the site.

UOKiK concluded that reduced competition for drivers could limit pressure on wages and, consequently, on the transport rates charged by carriers.

The decision was submitted to the European Commission for its opinion. According to UOKiK, the Commission agreed that the arrangement restricted competition.
 
Why recruitment is a competition-law issue?
 
Businesses can compete for workers even when they do not compete for the same customers.

Competition between employers gives workers an opportunity to obtain higher pay or better conditions. An agreement not to recruit one another’s workers may remove that pressure and restrict mobility.

The European Commission distinguishes between no-hire agreements, under which businesses agree not to employ one another’s workers, and non-solicitation agreements, under which they agree not to approach them actively.

In its 2024 policy brief on antitrust in labour markets, the Commission stated that wage-fixing and no-poach agreements will, in most cases, qualify as restrictions of competition by object under Article 101 TFEU.

The risk is not limited to written contracts. An arrangement may be evidenced by emails, messages, recruitment instructions, access rules or a consistent practice.
 
Are all recruitment restrictions prohibited?
 
Not every restriction connected with recruitment is automatically unlawful.

A restriction may require a different assessment if it is directly related and objectively necessary to a legitimate transaction or cooperation, such as a business sale or genuine joint venture.

The assessment is fact-specific. The restriction should cover only the workers, period and territory necessary for the underlying arrangement. The parties should also consider whether confidentiality obligations or another less restrictive measure could protect the same interest.

Preventing employees from leaving, reducing recruitment costs or limiting wage pressure will not provide a legitimate justification.
 
What should businesses review?
 
The decision shows that hiring restrictions may be created outside the HR department. They may also arise through procurement, supplier management and site-access procedures.

Businesses should review:
 

• no-hire and non-solicitation clauses in supplier and subcontractor agreements;
• requirements to obtain another employer’s consent before hiring;
• waiting periods applying when workers change employers;
• restrictions on site access after a worker joins another supplier;
• communications concerning employees moving between contractors;
• complaints that another supplier is recruiting existing workers; and
• which managers approve or enforce these practices.

 
Any restriction should have a documented legal and commercial justification and be reviewed according to how it operates in practice.
 
What penalties can apply?
 
An undertaking participating in an anti-competitive agreement may be fined up to 10 per cent of its turnover. Managers who intentionally allow an infringement may face personal fines of up to PLN 2 million.

In this case, fines were imposed on eight owners, partners and managers. One transport company provided information under the leniency programme and received a 50 per cent reduction.
 
What this means for businesses?
 
The decision is a warning for businesses coordinating networks of suppliers or contractors. A company does not need to employ the affected workers directly to create or enforce a restriction on competition for them.

Hiring rules should form part of a competition-law review covering contracts, communications and operational procedures. Particular attention should be given to who may recruit, whose permission is required and who controls access to the workplace.

Early legal review is safer than examining the arrangement after an investigation has begun.