An employee accuses PKO BP of discriminating against mothers. The bank replies: We treat everyone equally

An employee of PKO BP wrote to Bankier.pl, pointing out that this year's president's award did not cover women on maternity leave. The bank responds that it applied uniform criteria based on current participation in achieving business goals.

A dispute broke out in the largest bank in Poland over the rules for granting a one-off performance-related bonus. According to an e-mail sent to the editorial office, some employees on maternity leave were to be excluded from this year's president's award. The author of the message believes that this decision is particularly painful for young mothers and a signal that exercising statutory parental rights may mean the loss of important benefits. In her opinion, such an approach goes against the principle of equal treatment, and in a broader perspective, it may weaken the message of the state and large employers regarding supporting parenthood.

“We treat everyone equally”

PKO BP denies these allegations. In the response sent to the editorial office, the bank indicates that the award was intended to honor employees directly involved in achieving this year's business goals and was linked to the institution's results. Uniform criteria were of key importance, including long-term absence from work exceeding a total of seven months in the period from January 1, 2025 to November 17, 2025, excluding annual leave. The bank emphasizes that these criteria were not addressed to any specific group of employees, but resulted from the principles of granting benefits based on current participation in achieving results.

It looks fair on paper, but…

It is this justification that may be the axis of the dispute. In practice, the criterion of the length of absence is neutral on paper, but may have a strong impact on groups taking legally protected parental leave. The question that appears in the background is where to draw the line between rewarding a real contribution to the result in a given year and the risk of indirect unequal treatment of employees who temporarily do not work for reasons provided for by law.

From an image perspective, the matter is delicate for the bank. Today, annual awards and one-time benefits are not only an element of remuneration policy, but also part of the story of organizational culture. In a situation where the labor market is increasingly sensitive to issues of equality and support for parents, any decision that may be interpreted as a penalty for taking maternity leave carries the risk of tensions within the company and external criticism.

For now, it is not known whether the case will continue formally. From the employees' point of view, it may be crucial whether the award criteria will be clarified in the future in a way that will limit the risk of similar controversies. The bank maintains that it applied principles that are the same for everyone and are based on active participation in achieving the goals. However, the author of the letter to the editor believes that the effect of this policy affects women taking maternity leave. The dispute shows how thin the line can be between the logic of bonus systems and social expectations towards the largest employers in the country.

Source: