The labour inspector going to the inspection acts according to certain schemes. They result first of all from the provisions of the PIP Act, then from the provisions of the orders of the Chief Labour Inspector. The GIP has the right to lay down detailed guidelines for individual audits, taking into account their thematic scope. Of course, such guidelines cannot (or at least should not) interfere with statutory provisions. Regardless of the above, the purposeof the inspection carried out  by PIP inspectors is to make factual findings in terms of verifying whether the employer provides broadly understood working conditions, especially in the area of safety in a manner consistent with the applicable regulations. The second phase of the audit is to document the findings made – in the form of an audit report.

In any case, it cannot be assumed that since the protocol was signed by a labour inspector – that is, in principle, a person proficient in the subject matter under review – it should be signed in the dark. The recommended procedure is to read the protocol very carefully. This in turn excludes its automatic signing immediately after the presentation of such a document by the inspector.

The provisions of the PIP Act regulate the issue of the aforementioned signing of the protocol by the controlled entity. In the first place, it should be noted that a properly drawn up inspection report should contain, in particular, the date and place of signature of the report by:

• the controlling person, and
• the person or body representing the controlled entity.

In addition, it follows from the regulations that the protocol is signed by the labour inspector conducting the inspection and the person or body representing the inspected entity.

There is a legal exception for refusing to sign the protocol. The audited entity has the right to submit, before signing the inspection protocol, reasoned objections to the findings contained in the protocol.

Since the provisions stipulate that signatures, including the signature of the controlled entity or its representative, are an integral part of the protocol, it seems that this signature, or rather its submission , can be assessed as a legal obligation. On the other hand, there are no provisions of the PIP Act that would sanction the lack of signature. Thus, as a rule, the signature should be, but there will be no crime or misdemeanor, when the controlled entity for some reason refuses to submit it.

Refusal to sign the protocol by a person or body representing the controlled entity does not prevent the labour inspector from applying the appropriate legal measures provided for by law.

The above rule is an exact copy of the statutory provision, which provides for a situation as perfectly acceptable, when the controlled entity refuses to sign the protocol. The lack of a signature will not mean that the findings of the inspection will not be able to constitute the basis for the application of legal measures provided for in the PIP Act. Especially issuing administrative decisions, which the inspector regulates the issue of occupational health and safety. If the opposite assumption were to be made, any lack of a controlled signature would be associated with the proverbial throwing of post-control documentation into the trash.

Source: https://www.portalbhp.pl/blog/prawo-czy-obowiazek-podpisania-protokolu-inspektora-pip-10233.html

Projekt otrzymał dofinansowanie z Norwegii poprzez Fundusze Norweskie 2014-2021, w ramach programu „Dialog społeczny – godna praca”.