Poland’s competition authority UOKiK has imposed almost PLN 572 million in fines on Jeronimo Martins Polska, 29 transport companies and eight individuals over an alleged no-poach arrangement affecting drivers serving Biedronka distribution centres. The largest single penalty — PLN 525.5 million — was imposed on Jeronimo Martins Polska.
According to UOKiK, transport companies operating around Biedronka distribution centres agreed not to compete with one another for drivers. The authority says the retailer’s owner organised the system and monitored compliance.
Drivers allegedly needed permission to change employers
The mechanism described by UOKiK was designed to limit movement between transport companies working for the same distribution centre. A driver who wanted to move to a competing carrier could need the consent of the previous employer.
Without that consent, the driver could be subject to a waiting period lasting several months, during which they could not work for the new employer at the relevant distribution centre. In practice, that made recruitment less attractive for the competing company and reduced the worker’s ability to use another job offer to negotiate better conditions.
The arrangement allegedly lasted for years
UOKiK says the practice operated from June 2017 until at least February 2024, when the authority carried out searches. It may have affected the employment conditions of several thousand drivers.
Competition law is usually associated with prices, market shares and agreements between companies selling goods or services. This case illustrates a broader trend in enforcement: competition authorities are increasingly looking at agreements that restrict competition for workers.
Why no-poach agreements matter
If employers agree not to hire one another’s workers, employees lose part of the bargaining power that normally comes from the possibility of changing jobs. That can reduce wage pressure, slow improvements in working conditions and make it harder for workers to move to companies offering better terms.
For businesses, the decision is also a warning that informal arrangements concerning recruitment can create competition-law risk. Rules that appear to solve operational problems between contractors can be unlawful if they restrict the labour market.
The decision is not the end of the legal process
The penalties announced by UOKiK are significant, but the companies and individuals covered by the decision have legal avenues to challenge it. The final outcome may therefore depend on subsequent proceedings.
The case is nevertheless one of the clearest examples in Poland of competition enforcement moving directly into employment practices. It puts no-poach arrangements firmly on the compliance agenda for large companies and networks of contractors.
Source: UOKiK, based on reporting published by CEO.com.pl.
