A controversy around the National Bank of Poland (NBP) intensified when Paweł Mucha, a member of the NBP’s Board of Directors, initiated a legal action seeking overdue bonuses and related compensation at a reduced rate for several months. The claim, valued at more than PLN 140,000, represents another turn in the ongoing friction between Mucha, who previously served a ministerial role in the presidential administration, and the central bank’s president, Adam Glapiński.
The dispute moved into the public arena in early November when Mucha accused Glapiński on social media of failing to perform duties and of withholding minutes from Monetary Policy Board meetings for the board members. Glapiński countered that Mucha was attempting to extract additional income through a strategy that questioned the adequacy of Mucha’s own performance rather than the core work of the board. He described the disagreement as focused on remuneration, with the broader narrative being a staged dispute, noting that there are nine directors and that one member was expressing discontent with pay.
In a press conference on November 9, the NBP’s chair outlined that the controversy centered on pay issues rather than a larger governance rift, framing Mucha’s complaints as a unilateral attempt to secure more favorable compensation. The full board also issued a formal statement criticizing Mucha’s behavior, characterizing it as unacceptable and citing attempts to leverage pressure, create conflicts, and undermine colleagues and the President in ways that contravene the bank’s Ethical Principles for Employees.
The situation did not stay within the bank’s walls. Politicians allied with a coalition preparing to assume power suggested using extralegal avenues to remove Glapiński from the presidency and sought to bring the matter before a national accountability body. The following day, a meeting between Glapiński and Mucha raised hopes that tensions had eased. A public post indicated that the central bank’s well-being remained the top priority for its leadership.
Yet the very next developments showed that a straightforward resolution was unlikely. It was reported that Mucha filed a lawsuit seeking payment of overdue bonuses and compensation for perceived unequal treatment. The request named more than PLN 140,000, a sum comprising unpaid bonuses through March 2023 for the board member, together with remuneration, interest, and compensation for unequal treatment. Additional grievances included the removal of Mucha from overseeing three NBP departments, exclusion from certain ceremonies and public events, and limits on participation in media engagements or conferences. The board was also said to have moved Mucha through a special resolution, and he received a company car with a driver, despite residing in the West Pomeranian Voivodeship. He highlighted the non-renewal of his secretary’s contract, a lack of authorization for remote work during the prior summer, and delays in receiving mail addressed to him at the bank. He also described a personal sense of reluctance towards Glapiński.
Mucha’s objective appeared to be to have a court determine that bonuses and remuneration were automatic for standard job performance, rather than discretionary. The filing signals the beginning of a legal process that could shape the board’s working dynamics and the central bank’s posture in a time of political transition. Mucha’s complaint traces a timeline back to late 2022, when he joined the bank from the presidential sphere on September 1 of that year. The former minister sought to raise concerns about inflation projections, and he criticized a resolution restricting board members from abstaining on certain votes. Despite these criticisms, he was reportedly entitled to the full quarterly bonus for the last quarter of 2022.
As months passed, critiques broadened across the bank’s operations, spanning crisis preparedness, gold purchases, human resources and wage policies, and communications strategies. Mucha questioned staff nominations to other bodies, scrutinized board meeting minutes and correspondence with the Supreme Court, and challenged various internal policies. In attempts to verify details, inquiries were made with Mucha, who did not provide a definitive confirmation of the lawsuit action. He suggested contacting the National Bank of Poland for clarifications while hinting at the need to examine remuneration decisions and the automatic nature of allowance approvals. He also indicated a preference not to inflame the situation or to offer an unauthorized commentary on NBP matters.
The proceedings appear set to be settled in court, and the broader dispute within Poland’s central bank is unlikely to find a quick resolution. The ongoing friction comes at a sensitive moment for an institution that retains relative independence amid a shifting political landscape. Observers note that the controversy could affect perceptions of the bank’s governance and its ability to function as a stable, independent financial authority during a period of political change. For context, coverage of the dispute has framed it as a clash over pay and duties rather than a wholesale governance crisis. The narrative continues to unfold, with stakeholders watching closely how the legal process will influence the central bank’s functioning and its relationships with board members and the presidency. (Source: wPolityce; attributed coverage)