Strategic Employment Law and OSH Training for Internal Auditors (2026)

Mgr. Jakub Oliva, LL.M., MSc.
Mgr. Jakub Oliva, LL.M., MSc.
25.5.2026 | ARROWS law firm

Employment law training for OHS (occupational health and safety) and internal auditors is a key risk management tool that protects the company, managers, and employees. In an environment of strict regulation, new obligations, and frequent inspections by the Labour Inspectorate, an error in setting up training can prove very costly. This article shows how to approach training effectively so that auditors can systematically verify the practical effectiveness of OHS in practice. It also reflects developments from 2026, including mandatory savings contributions for high-risk work and tightened rules for working with asbestos.

The illustrative image shows an expert consulting on employment law training for occupational health and safety auditors.

Key takeaways:
  • Employment law training for OSH and internal auditors in a well-managed company is not just about ticking off an e-learning course, but about an integrated system of onboarding, periodic and ad hoc training. This system is linked to risk assessment, internal audits and documentation that will stand up to scrutiny by the Labour Inspectorate and in Czech courts.
  • Underestimating training carries significant risks. Under the Czech Labour Inspection Act, inadequate OSH training, missing documentation, or shifting occupational safety costs onto employees may result in fines of up to CZK 2,000,000. In extreme cases, this may include a ban on activities and, at the same time, personal liability (including criminal liability) of managerial employees.
  • Internal auditors need much deeper knowledge of employment law and OSH than ordinary employees in order to identify systemic shortcomings. The lawyers at ARROWS advokátní kanceláře help clients set up training content, internal policies and internal audit processes so that the overall system makes sense both commercially and legally.

Why to approach employment law training for OSH and internal auditors strategically

From the perspective of Czech legislation, employment law and OSH training form a complex whole. It overlaps the Labour Code, OSH regulations (for example Act No. 309/2006 Coll., on ensuring further OSH conditions), the Labour Inspection Act, regulations on occupational health services, and the requirements of standards such as ISO 45001. Under the Labour Code, the employer is obliged to ensure occupational safety and health protection for all employees, taking into account the risks of the specific work.

A key part of this obligation is high-quality, demonstrable training. When setting the training content, responsibilities and documentation in line with the Labour Code, it is often worthwhile in practice to rely on specialists in employment law. This complements employees’ professional qualifications for performing their work and relates to the risks of their workplace.

Internal auditors who, within the company, review OSH or the broader risk management system therefore cannot do without a solid foundation in employment law. It is not enough for them to know that “the training took place”; they must be able to assess whether the training truly meets the Labour Code requirements as to content, frequency, format, knowledge verification and record-keeping.

In practice, this means that an internal auditor must read not only internal policies, but also legal regulations and be able to translate them into control questions, checklists and corrective measures. For top management, a well-designed employment law training programme for OSH and internal audits is of fundamental importance. It significantly reduces the risk of fines, workplace accidents and disputes with employees, increases legal certainty in managing production and services, and creates an important argument when dealing with the Labour Inspectorate or insurers. For practical preparation for an inspection (including working with OSH documentation and training records), the follow-up article How to handle a Labour Inspectorate inspection without unnecessary problems may also be useful.

A poorly designed training system, on the other hand, leads to situations where the company has “trained on paper”, but in reality it is not possible to prove either the content, the comprehensibility, or the specific focus of the training on the risks of the given workplace.

In practice, the lawyers at ARROWS advokátní kanceláře encounter the fact that many companies view employment law and OSH training in isolation, as the purchase of a one-off e-learning course or external training. However, from the perspective of the Labour Inspectorate and the courts, the entire system is assessed: risk assessment, links to job categorisation, occupational health examinations, OSH documentation, workplace inspections and internal audits. Only if these parts form a logical whole does the training have real preventive and defensive value.

The most common mistakes made by company management in OSH and employment law training

In practice, four typical mistakes recur most often. 

1. The training is too general and does not take specific occupational risks into account. The Labour Code requires OSH training to be focused on the employee’s specific work and the risks they may encounter when performing it; a general course without so-called occupational add-ons therefore does not meet legal requirements.

2. Missing or poor-quality documentation. The employer is obliged to keep verifiable documentation of the training carried out, including the date, place, content, attendance sheet and the results of knowledge verification. If disputed situations nevertheless escalate into claims and evidence (e.g., after a workplace accident or during an inspection), it is appropriate to also count on support in the area of commercial and litigation disputes. During Labour Inspectorate inspections, OSH documentation and training records are among the most frequently sanctioned deficiencies, and fines for serious breaches may reach up to CZK 2,000,000.

3. The training does not take language comprehensibility for foreign nationals into account. The Labour Code expressly provides that information on risks and measures must be understandable to employees; for foreign nationals, the employer must therefore ensure training in a language they understand, for example with the help of an interpreter or translated materials. For HR and OSH practice, it is also useful to have a process in place for recording and checking obligations for agreements and other atypical regimes, which is addressed in the article Agreements to perform work in 2026: How to correctly set limits, avoid unexpected tax contributions and sanctions after Labour Code changes. Underestimating this obligation can dramatically backfire on the employer if a foreign employee is injured.

4. Internal auditors are not trained in employment law. In many companies, internal OSH audits are limited to a formal review of binders without deeper knowledge of legal requirements. As a result, “audit reports” may exist, but they do not reveal fundamental systemic shortcomings—for example, that the training does not include occupational add-ons or that the periodicity does not correspond to the actual workplace risks.

The result is often a false sense of security, which can have far-reaching consequences. The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, therefore recommend that employment law training for internal auditors should cover not only the basic OSH standards, but also practical procedures for reviewing documentation, setting internal policies, communicating with the Labour Inspectorate, and enforcing accountability of managerial employees. Only then can an internal audit fulfil its true role—identifying risks in time, rather than merely documenting a problem after the fact.

Legal framework for employment law and OSH training

The key regulation is the Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006 Coll.), which imposes on the employer the obligation to ensure OSH and to train employees on legal and other regulations. Under Section 103 of the Labour Code, the employer must provide employees with OSH information and instructions according to the needs of the work performed, in particular by familiarising them with risks, the results of risk assessments, and measures to protect against their effects.

At the same time, the same provision sets out the obligation to train employees on legal and other regulations that supplement their professional qualifications and requirements for performing work and relate to the specific risks of their work and workplace. The employer must continuously require such training and monitor compliance. This means that training is not a one-off event, but part of ongoing care for employees’ safety and legal awareness.

The Labour Code also expressly assigns the employer the responsibility to determine the content and frequency of training, the method of verifying knowledge, and the keeping of documentation. Legislation intentionally does not specify exact deadlines or the form of training; it is based on the principle that each workplace and each profession involves different risks. In practice, as a standard for non-risk professions, it is often recommended to repeat OSH training approximately once every two years, while for high-risk work more frequently (for example once a year), with the specific interval to be set by an internal policy based on the risk assessment.

In addition to OSH, legislation also imposes an obligation to provide other initial training. This mainly includes fire protection training (under Act No. 133/1985 Coll., on Fire Protection) and driver training for employees who drive a vehicle as part of their work. All of these areas directly overlap with employment law (liability for damage, occupational injuries, mandatory breaks, risk factors, and others), and therefore, in a well-designed system, they should not be trained separately but as an interconnected whole.

Alongside general OSH training, the employer must also, under the Labour Code, organise additional training when there is a change in job assignment or type of work, when new technology or a work procedure is introduced, or in situations that may have a material impact on occupational safety and health. This is essential for internal auditors as well—on every technology modernisation project, production reorganisation, or introduction of a new work regime, the auditor must verify whether training and documentation have been adequately updated.

Labour Inspectorate and sanctions for deficiencies in training

The Labour Inspection Act (Act No. 251/2005 Coll.) regulates the position of the Labour Inspectorate as a supervisory authority, its powers, and sanctions for breaches of employment regulations, including OSH. In the area of occupational safety, it allows fines of up to CZK 2,000,000 for serious violations (for example under Section 30(1)(c) of the Labour Inspection Act). This includes, for example, failure to ensure the adoption of risk prevention measures, non-compliance with obligations under Sections 101 to 103 of the Labour Code, failure to recognise the right to refuse dangerous work, or shifting OSH costs onto employees.

Lower, but still significant, sanctions may be imposed for missing or incomplete training documentation, failure to provide cooperation to inspectors, or failure to keep mandatory records, such as an accident book. From the perspective of employment law training for internal auditors, it is crucial that the audit programme also includes checking compliance with the requirements of the Labour Inspection Act—especially with regard to documentation, provision of information, and the organisation of OSH inspections at workplaces.

A very practical impact is also that, when investigating an occupational injury, the Labour Inspectorate assesses whether the employer demonstrably trained the employee on risks, work procedures, the use of personal protective equipment, and conduct in emergency situations. If it turns out that the training was too general, outdated, or was not supported by testing and documentation, this may lead not only to a higher fine, but also to an assessment of a higher degree of employer fault when compensating damage.

The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often assist clients in situations where the Labour Inspectorate challenges the effectiveness of training, for example because it did not include job-specific modules, was not supported by knowledge verification, or was not adapted for foreign-language employees. In such cases, what is decisive is how well the company has set up its internal documentation and whether internal auditors flagged these issues in time.

New developments effective from 2026 that training must reflect

The legal framework in employment law and OSH has changed significantly in recent months, and employment law training for OSH and internal auditors must respond to these changes. As of 1 January 2024, a new act on the mandatory contribution to retirement savings products applies to employees performing high-risk work in the third category for selected factors (vibration, cold exposure, heat exposure, and overall physical workload), and these obligations will be fully implemented and inspected in 2026.

Employers are required to pay a contribution of 4% of the assessment base to pension insurance or supplementary pension savings if the employee worked at least three shifts of such high-risk work in the given month and asserted the entitlement.

These obligations also include informing employees in writing about the right to the contribution before they start performing high-risk work and keeping detailed records of high-risk shifts and contribution payments, which must be retained for ten years. Failure to meet the information obligation or failure to issue confirmation of payment of the contribution may result in a fine of up to CZK 200,000. This agenda is directly related to OSH (job categorisation, third risk category, shift records) and must therefore be part of training for managerial employees, HR, and internal auditors.

Another major new development is the introduction of the unified monthly employer report (JMHZ), which gradually consolidates a range of reports to social security authorities, the tax administration, and labour offices. The JMHZ system is directly linked to records of employees, their employment relationships, occupational injuries, and high-risk shifts, and therefore it is essential that internal auditors understand the connection between HR processes, OSH, and this new record-keeping obligation.

The OSH area has also been affected by an amendment to the decree on job categorisation and protective limits (No. 432/2003 Coll.), which tightens requirements for working with asbestos and other hazardous substances and introduces new requirements for training and medical assessments for exposed employees in connection with the transposition of relevant EU directives. An amendment to the Labour Code also affects the recording and reporting of occupational injuries, with the government continuing to set the structure and required elements of records and the submission of injury reports, for example under Government Regulation No. 201/2010 Coll.

Employment law training for OHS and internal auditors must reflect these changes both from the employer’s perspective (new obligations, sanctions, record-keeping requirements) and from the internal audit perspective (what and how to verify, what documentation to request, what new risks are emerging). The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, are currently helping companies update not only training curricula, but also internal OHS policies, job categorisation, and processes for reporting accidents and high-risk shifts.

Most common questions on the legal framework for training

1. How often do we have to repeat OHS and employment law training?
The law does not set a specific frequency, but it requires that training be repeated at regular intervals depending on the nature and severity of the risks (Section 103(2) of the Labour Code). In practice, for non-risk occupations an interval of approximately once every two years is recommended; for high-risk work, once a year or more often. The interval should be set out in an internal policy based on a risk assessment. ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can assist clients with setting the intervals and drafting the policies.

2. Is it sufficient if employees are trained by their direct supervisor?
The law does not specify who exactly must conduct the training, but the employer is responsible for the quality and accuracy of the content. A managerial employee may provide training if they have the necessary knowledge and are able to cover both the general and the job-specific part of the training in compliance with legal regulations; moreover, for managers, separate training focused on their duties and liability is essential. In practice, a combination of an external OHS/legal expert and internal managers is often chosen; the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, help set what is appropriate to delegate and what is not.

3. Do we need different training for internal auditors than for ordinary employees?
Yes, internal auditors have a different role and need deeper knowledge of employment law and OHS, especially in the area of documentation, mandatory checks, job categorisation, and new record-keeping obligations (for example mandatory contributions to retirement savings, JMHZ). Standard training for rank-and-file employees is not sufficient for them; ideally, it is a combination of general OHS training, a specialised employment-law module, and a practical workshop using the company’s real documentation, including participation by the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm.

What effective employment law training for OHS must include

Initial OHS training and related areas (for example fire protection and drivers – designated employees) must be provided by the employer no later than on the employee’s first day at work, during working hours and at the employer’s expense (Section 103(3) of the Labour Code). Without completing the initial training, the employee must not start performing work, not even for a single day.

Initial training has two levels: a general level (statutory obligations, employees’ rights and duties, general risks) and a practical level relating to the specific workplace, equipment used, and real risks at the given site.

Periodic (refresher) training serves to deepen and update knowledge, especially if legislation or technology changes or if workplace accidents or incidents have occurred. The law clearly provides that if required by the nature of the risk and its severity, training must be repeated regularly. This is precisely where practice often fails: companies may have an internal regulation, but compliance is not systematically monitored, exceptions are not traceable, and internal audit is satisfied with the statement that “periodic training took place”.

Extraordinary training must be ensured by the employer when there is a change in job assignment or type of work, when a new technology or work procedure is introduced, and also in other cases that may have a material impact on occupational safety and health protection (Section 103(2) of the Labour Code). Typically, this involves a production reorganisation, installation of a new production line, a switch to shift operation, or after a serious workplace accident. From an internal audit perspective, it is essential that such extraordinary training is planned and documented in connection with change management and risk assessment.

For internal auditors, it should be standard practice to verify that for significant operational changes there are not only technical and organisational documents, but also records of extraordinary training for employees and managers, including verification of knowledge. Employment law training for internal auditors should teach them how to read these links and how to flag, in time, a missing step that may later significantly complicate the company’s defence.

Job-specific add-ons and targeting specific risks

A modern approach to OHS is based on the fact that general statutory frameworks are not enough—training must be “tailor-made” for the specific profession and workplace. The Labour Code therefore insists that training relate to the risks that an employee may encounter when performing work; in practice, this has led to the concept of so-called job-specific add-ons, which supplement the general part of training with the specifics of the given profession.

A job-specific add-on for a warehouse worker operating a forklift will therefore contain different information than for an administrative employee or a nurse. The add-on must cover specific risks (manual handling of loads, operation of handling equipment, movement of persons in the warehouse area, use of PPE) and the related legal and internal regulations.

If an employer provides only general training, without job-specific add-ons relevant to the employee’s work, such training is not considered effective from the labour inspection perspective.

For internal auditors, the role of job-specific add-ons is twofold. On the one hand, they themselves participate in general and specific training arising from their job position. On the other hand, they are often the ones who check whether all employees in individual professions have been trained, including the corresponding add-ons. 

Employment law training for internal auditors should therefore include a practical module on how to assess the content of training, how to verify that job-specific add-ons truly correspond to the job catalogue and risk categorisation, and how to point out non-compliance.

In practice, the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often review the content of OHS and employment law training precisely from the perspective of job-specific add-ons. For example, they address situations where an off-the-shelf e-learning course purchased “turnkey” for the entire company contains no specific information about risks in the client’s particular sector (for example the chemical industry, healthcare, logistics) and therefore would not stand up as evidence of proper training in the event of an accident.

E-learning, language clarity and verification of knowledge

The form of OHS training is not strictly prescribed by law, and therefore e-learning or hybrid training is also permissible, provided that the employer ensures the necessary content, comprehensibility, and provability. The labour inspectorate emphasises in this area that the key is for the training to be based on the specific risks of the given workplace and to be demonstrable— a universal “click-through” course without any link to the real situation in the company is not sufficient.

The Labour Code and the labour inspectorate’s methodology insist that the employer must verify that the employee has actually understood the information (Section 103(2) of the Labour Code). Knowledge verification may take the form of a written test, an oral interview, or a practical exam, but it must always be documented. In practice, this means that after completing e-learning, a test should follow and its results should be retained as part of the OHS documentation, including the employee’s identification and the completion date.

Special attention is required when training foreign employees. The Labour Code requires that information on risks and measures be understandable to employees; if an employee does not understand Czech, the employer must provide training in a language the employee understands, or with the assistance of an interpreter, and adapt the written materials accordingly. In e‑learning, this often means the need for language versions or at least a translation of key sections.

Internal auditors should therefore pay particular attention during inspections to whether the company trains foreign employees in a genuinely comprehensible way and whether it can document this. The effectiveness of e‑learning cannot be assessed solely by the number of “clicked-through” courses.

A modern approach to assessing training quality works with comparing employees’ performance and behaviour before and after training, monitoring the application of knowledge in practice, and collecting feedback from employees. Internal auditors should therefore be able not only to check the formal aspects of e‑learning, but also to ask whether the training actually changes workplace behaviour and reduces risks.

Training documentation as key evidence

One of the most important, yet often underestimated, aspects of OHS and employment law training is documentation. The Labour Code expressly requires the employer to keep documentation of the training carried out, including specification of the content, frequency, method of verifying knowledge, and attendance records (Section 103(2) of the Labour Code).

In practice, each training record should include at least the date and place, a specific outline (content), duration, the trainer’s name, a list of participants, and the result of knowledge verification (for example, a test). During labour inspection audits, training documentation is among the first documents requested. 

If documentation is missing, incomplete, or does not reflect reality, the employer faces the risk of sanctions and, in the event of a workplace accident, a more difficult defence that it did everything it could to prevent the accident. From an internal audit perspective, reviewing training documentation should therefore be a standard part of audit programmes and checklists, not merely a marginal item.

A specific issue is long-term archiving of records. It is recommended that training records be kept at least for the entire duration of the employment relationship and for a certain period after it ends, as employment disputes and the consequences of accidents may arise with a time delay (for example, records of workplace accidents must be kept for 5 years under Section 105(3) of the Labour Code).

In addition, in the area of mandatory contributions to retirement savings, there is an obligation to keep records of hazardous shifts and contribution payments for ten years. Internal auditors must understand these time limits and verify that the company complies with its established archiving policies.

ARROWS advokátní kancelář often helps clients review existing templates for attendance sheets, training outlines, and archiving rules so that they comply with current legal requirements and withstand an inspection or court dispute. If necessary, the attorneys from ARROWS advokátní kancelář then represent clients in dealings with the labour inspectorate and defend the adequacy of the training and documentation system.

Possible issues

How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)

Insufficient training content: OHS and employment law training is too general, lacks role-specific add-ons, and does not reflect the specific risks of the workplace.

The attorneys of ARROWS advokátní kancelář will assess your existing outlines, supplement them with role-specific add-ons and the legal minimum so that the training complies with the Labour Code and the specifics of your operations.

Missing or incomplete training documentation: it is not possible to prove when and how employees were trained or how knowledge verification was carried out.

The attorneys of ARROWS advokátní kancelář will prepare templates for training records, an internal training policy, and archiving rules so that the documentation withstands scrutiny by the labour inspectorate and courts.

Risks relating to foreign employees: the training is not understandable for non-Czech-speaking employees, translations are missing, and there is no evidence that they were familiarised with the risks.

ARROWS advokátní kancelář will help you set up a system for training foreign employees, including recommendations on translations, interpreting, and how to evidence comprehensibility in line with labour inspectorate requirements.

No linkage between training and internal audit: internal auditors only formally check the “existence of training” but do not identify systemic deficiencies.

The attorneys of ARROWS advokátní kancelář will prepare specialised training for internal auditors and help set up audit checklists focused on legal and OHS aspects.

New obligations from 2026 (mandatory contributions, JMHZ, changes in accident records) are not included in training or internal policies.

ARROWS advokátní kancelář will carry out a legislative audit, identify the necessary changes, prepare updated policies, and incorporate them into the content of training and internal audits.
Most common questions on the content and format of training

1. Is e‑learning legally acceptable for OHS and employment law?
Yes, the law does not expressly prohibit e‑learning; the key is the content, comprehensibility, and provability of the training, including knowledge verification and a link to the specific risks of the workplace. In practice, it is advisable to combine e‑learning with a practical part and ensure that there is clear documentation of completion and test results. The attorneys of ARROWS advokátní kancelář can help you set up legally robust e‑learning.

2. Do we always have to test employees, or is their signature on an attendance sheet sufficient?
A signature on an attendance sheet alone does not prove that the employee understood the content; the labour inspectorate and professional literature recommend verifying knowledge by a test, interview, or practical demonstration. From the perspective of the employer’s defence after a workplace accident, a written test or an examination record is very valuable evidence. ARROWS advokátní kancelář can prepare tests and an examination methodology so that they are usable even in a potential dispute.

3. How should we reflect mandatory contributions to savings in training for hazardous work?
Managers and internal auditors should be trained on what the third category of hazardous work is, how hazardous shifts are recorded, and when the employer’s obligation arises to contribute to employees’ pension savings (under Act No. 281/2023 Coll.). The training should also cover information obligations towards employees and record-keeping obligations towards social security authorities. The attorneys of ARROWS advokátní kancelář can incorporate this information into your training programmes and internal policies.

Internal auditors: a special role, requirements and risks

An internal auditor in the area of OHS and employment law is a person who independently assesses within the organisation whether the occupational safety management system and compliance with employment regulations operate effectively. Their task is not only to check “formal compliance”, but also to identify systemic weak points that may lead to accidents, fines, or disputes with employees.

In practice, we encounter an internal auditor in two roles. First, this is an internal OHS auditor within a management system under ISO 45001 or internal standards, who verifies, for example, the implementation of safe work procedures, the use of PPE, the quality of training, and the performance of annual OHS reviews. Second, this is an internal auditor within a broader management system (ISO 9001, ISO 14001) or the company’s internal audit, where OHS and employment law are addressed as one of the audited areas.

Regardless of the specific framework, the common denominator is that the internal auditor should be sufficiently independent, professionally competent, and familiar with the relevant legal regulations—otherwise they cannot competently assess whether the company is meeting its obligations. 

Auditing Standard ISA 610, which governs the use of internal audit work by an external auditor, emphasizes the need to assess the professional competence of internal auditors and the adequacy of their work, including planning, performance, supervision, and documentation. A similar logic also applies to in-house OHS audits.

This is precisely where employment law training for internal auditors comes into play. It is not enough for an auditor to understand only internal policies; they must be able to assess whether those policies comply with the Czech Labour Code, OHS regulations, the Labour Inspection Act, and other related rules. This requires systematic updating of knowledge, especially at a time when legislation introduces new obligations (high-risk professions, workplace injury agenda, JMHZ).

What an internal auditor must review in the area of training and OHS

From an internal audit perspective, employment law and OHS training is one of the most sensitive areas because it has a direct impact on employee safety and is also easily verifiable by the Czech Labour Inspectorate. A well-designed audit program should therefore cover several layers.

The first layer is the level of documentation. The auditor verifies whether internal OHS and training policies exist, whether they comply with Czech law, whether they define the content, frequency, and method of verifying knowledge, and whether the policies are regularly updated in response to legislative changes and the results of risk assessments.

In the second layer, the internal auditor focuses on the training content itself. They verify whether the training covers both general legal requirements (OHS, fire protection, employee and employer obligations) and the specific risks of the given profession and workplace through role-specific add-ons. The auditor typically works with training outlines, presentations, tests, and interviews with selected employees to confirm that the declared content truly corresponds to what employees actually receive.

The third layer concerns delivery and verification of knowledge. The internal auditor should verify whether training takes place within the deadlines set by the policy, whether attendance is recorded for all participants, how make-up training is organized for employees who could not attend for objective reasons, and how knowledge testing is carried out. In the case of e-learning, for example, they should check whether there are reliable records of completion time, test results, and the identity of the person who completed the course.

The fourth layer is the link to other elements of the OHS system, i.e., risk assessment, job categorization, workplace injuries and their investigation, annual OHS reviews, and audit corrective actions. If, for example, workplace injuries occur repeatedly in the same area, it is a legitimate question whether training in that area was sufficient and whether it needed to be updated or intensified. The internal auditor should actively look for and document these connections.

Attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář often work with internal auditors on developing audit checklists that include not only technical OHS aspects but also specific legal requirements under Czech legislation, such as the obligation to organize annual OHS reviews at all workplaces, the obligation to regularly monitor the level of risk factors in working conditions, or the obligation to keep an accident logbook and records of workplace injuries under Section 105 of the Czech Labour Code.

Link to ISO 45001 and other standards

The ISO 45001 standard, which governs occupational health and safety management systems, emphasizes systematic identification and assessment of risks, planning of measures, training, and employee involvement. An audit under this standard focuses on whether the organization has identified risks, adopted appropriate measures and verifies their effectiveness, and whether the entire OHS system operates in a cycle of continual improvement.

Internal auditors who perform audits under ISO 45001 therefore must understand not only the standard but also national legislation, in particular the Czech Labour Code and OHS regulations. Audit findings often shift from the level of “inefficiency” to the level of “breach of law”. Employment law training for internal auditors should explicitly explain this link and show how to translate legal requirements into audit criteria.

Another dimension is brought by combined audits that link, for example, ISO 9001 (quality), ISO 14001 (environment), and ISO 45001 (OHS). In these, OHS overlaps with process management, environmental risks, and production quality. The internal auditor must be able to identify how, for example, poorly designed training for machine operators can lead not only to an injury but also to defective production, complaints, and environmental damage.

Attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář have experience with clients who combine certification under multiple standards while also addressing specific regulatory requirements (for example in the chemical, energy, or healthcare sectors). In such cases, they help align the legal minimum, ISO requirements, and internal audit procedures so that “double bookkeeping” does not occur—one set of rules for the audit and another for the law.

Most common questions about the role of internal auditors

1. Does an internal OHS auditor have to have a legal education?
They do not have to be a lawyer, but they should have systematic training in employment law and OHS so that they understand the legal obligations of the employer and managerial employees under Czech law. Without this knowledge, they cannot assess whether internal policies and practice comply with statutory requirements. ARROWS advokátní kancelář therefore offers clients specialized employment law training specifically for internal auditors.

2. How often should internal auditors complete refresher training?
Given frequent legislative changes in the area of OHS, workplace injury agenda, and employee records, it is advisable for internal auditors to undergo refresher training at least once a year or whenever there is a significant change in regulations. The update should cover not only new laws but also methodological guidance from the Czech Labour Inspectorate and the case law of Czech courts. Attorneys at ARROWS advokátní kancelář regularly prepare such tailored refresher training for clients.

3. What role does an internal auditor play during a labour inspection?
An internal audit should prevent issues that a labour inspection would otherwise uncover. In practice, the internal auditor often prepares supporting materials, maps the state of documentation, and helps management understand where the greatest risks lie from the inspectorate’s perspective. If a company has been working long-term with a high-quality internal audit function, it is usually significantly better prepared for inspections and for defending any incidents, and ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can then build on the existing system during the inspection itself rather than starting from scratch.

How to set up a training system in employment law for OHS and internal auditors

The first step towards an effective training system is a robust risk assessment and identification of hazards in the workplace (under Section 102 of the Czech Labour Code). Without this step, it is not possible to determine what professional add-ons are needed, what rules should apply to specific technologies, workplaces and shifts, and what training is mandatory when operational changes occur. The Labour Code expressly imposes on the employer a duty to continuously identify hazardous factors, assess risks and adopt measures to eliminate them, including training.

The risk analysis should take into account not only physical risks (machinery, manual handling of loads, chemicals), but also new types of risks such as psychosocial risks, musculoskeletal disorders, or risks associated with atypical working arrangements. Experience from European surveys shows that smaller workplaces often underestimate psychosocial risks in particular and believe that they “have no risks”, which contradicts reality. Training for internal auditors should also include this comprehensive perspective.

Based on the risk assessment, it is possible to structure a job catalogue, categorise work under Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the Protection of Public Health, and related Decree No. 432/2003 Coll., and assign mandatory training and professional add-ons to them. This step also involves obligations related to high-risk work in the third category and mandatory contributions to retirement savings. An experienced lawyer can help align OHS requirements, occupational health services and the employer’s new financial obligations.

Internal policies, training plans and linkage to audits

The second step is the creation or update of internal policies governing OHS, training, internal audits and annual workplace inspections. The policies should clearly specify what types of training exist within the company (induction, periodic, extraordinary, training for managers, training for internal auditors), who is responsible for them, how they are planned and how they are documented. The policies should also include rules for e-learning, language comprehensibility for foreign employees, and document archiving.

The training plan should be linked to the plan of internal audits and annual OHS inspections. For example, outputs from the annual inspection (identified deficiencies, injuries, incidents) should lead to adjustments to the content or frequency of training in the affected areas. Internal audits should then verify not only compliance with the plans, but also the effectiveness of training, for example through employee interviews or analysis of accident rates.

ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, often helps clients set internal policies so that they are understandable and practically usable, while also being legally robust. In practice, we encounter policies that are either too brief and vague (they do not provide clear guidance and are harder to defend during a labour inspection), or, conversely, overly detailed and unrealistically set, so the company does not actually follow them. In both cases, this makes the work of internal auditors more difficult.

How the attorneys at ARROWS can help

A well-designed training system in employment law for OHS and internal auditors requires a combination of legal, safety and process expertise. The attorneys at ARROWS typically work with clients in several consecutive steps:

First, they conduct a legal and process audit of the existing training, documentation and internal audit system – i.e., they verify whether internal policies comply with current Czech legislation, whether training documentation is evidential, and whether internal auditors have sufficient support for their work. This usually also includes an assessment of new obligations related to high-risk work, mandatory savings contributions and unified monthly reporting.

Subsequently, the attorneys at ARROWS prepare or update internal policies on OHS, training, internal audits and annual inspections. If needed, they also prepare templates for training records, tests, attendance sheets and checklists for internal audits. They take into account the specifics of the industry, the size of the company and its international context – thanks to the ARROWS International network, matters with a cross-border element can also be addressed.

The third step is the expert training itself. ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, provides training in employment law and OHS for company management, HR, internal auditors and line managers. The training focuses on practical situations – labour inspections, procedures in the event of a workplace accident, a manager’s liability, setting a probationary period, termination of employment, or managing high-risk professions.

With professional liability insurance coverage of up to CZK 400,000,000, ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, stands behind the quality of the legal advice provided, which is an important element of certainty for corporate clients when making strategic decisions. If you are considering reviewing your OHS and employment law training system or need to strengthen the competencies of internal auditors, you can contact ARROWS at any time via the contact email office@arws.cz.

Final summary

Training in employment law for OHS and internal auditors is now one of the key tools of risk management in a company. It is not a one-off obligation, but an ongoing process that must reflect the current legal framework, specific workplace risks, new obligations related to high-risk professions, mandatory retirement savings contributions, as well as changes in accident records.

It is not enough to “have training”; you need a system: well-designed policies, high-quality content with professional add-ons, evidential documentation, effective internal audits, and the ability to respond to incidents and legislative developments.

For business owners, management and investors, it is important to understand that training errors only become apparent when a problem arises – during labour inspections, a workplace accident or a dispute with an employee. At that moment, it becomes clear whether the training was truly effective or merely formal. Fines in the hundreds of thousands to millions of Czech crowns, damages, reputational impacts and blocked transactions can then far exceed any savings from a “cheap” or underestimated training system.

Internal auditors play a crucial role in this reality. If they have high-quality training in employment law and OHS, they can identify systemic shortcomings in time, propose corrective measures and help company leadership act preventively rather than only under the pressure of a labour inspection or court proceedings. Without this knowledge, the audit is reduced to a formal check of binders and provides a false sense of security.

If you do not want to risk errors, damage, delays, or fines, it is sensible to entrust the setup and ongoing review of the employment law training system for OHS and internal auditors to experts. The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, have experience across industries, understand the links between law, OHS and internal audit and are ready to work with you to practically set internal policies, training content, audit procedures, as well as defence in inspections and disputes. For a non-binding consultation, you can contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, by email at office@arws.cz.

FAQ -  Employment law training for OHS and internal auditors

1. Who must complete OHS and employment law training?
The Labour Code imposes an obligation to train all employees without exception—from temporary workers and employees working under agreements to senior employees and management. OHS training must be completed by everyone who works for you, even if it is only for a single day, and managerial employees additionally have extended training focused on their responsibilities. If you want to be sure that your company stays in the safe zone in this area, you can contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, at office@arws.cz.

2. What are the most common mistakes that the labour inspectorate finds in OHS and employment law training?
The most common shortcomings are overly general content with no link to specific risks, missing role-specific add-ons, insufficient or non-existent training documentation, failure to conduct extraordinary training after operational changes, and failure to carry out mandatory annual OHS reviews. A frequent issue is also training for foreign employees that is not understandable, or the absence of knowledge verification. If you want to prevent these problems, the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you set up the system—contact them at office@arws.cz.

3. What are the consequences of underestimating training for the liability of managerial employees?
The Labour Code imposes OHS duties not only on the employer but also on managerial employees (§ 103(3) of the Labour Code), for whom OHS compliance is an obligation arising from their position. If managers do not require and monitor compliance with regulations, they may bear employment-law and even criminal liability in the event of accidents or serious breaches of regulations. High-quality employment law training for managers and internal auditors significantly reduces the risk of personal liability; ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, can help you prepare such training, and you can contact them at office@arws.cz.

4. How should new obligations from 2026 be incorporated into employment law training for OHS?
The training should include an overview of new obligations, in particular mandatory contributions to retirement savings products for employees in high-risk occupations, their records and information duties (under Act No. 281/2023 Coll.), as well as requirements related to the single monthly employer report and changes in job categorisation and the recording of workplace accidents. It is advisable to dedicate a separate training block to managerial employees, HR and internal auditors who work with these obligations in practice. If you are not sure whether your training reflects the current legal framework, contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, by email at office@arws.cz.

5. How should we proceed if the labour inspectorate challenges the effectiveness of our OHS training?
In such a situation, it is crucial to quickly gather all documentation—syllabi, attendance sheets, tests, internal policies, risk assessments—analyse the inspectorate’s specific objections and prepare factual arguments, or a proposal for remedial measures. It is worth using expert assistance from attorneys experienced with labour inspections; the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, represent clients in these situations, help minimise sanctions and set up the system so that similar problems do not occur. If needed, you can contact them at office@arws.cz.

6. Does it make sense to invest in specialised employment law training for internal auditors if we have an external OHS specialist?
Yes—although you use an external OHS expert, responsibility for OHS always lies with the employer and managerial employees, not the external supplier. Internal auditors are the company’s “eyes”, know its processes and can identify issues in time that an external specialist might only see with a delay. Specialised employment law training for internal auditors will increase the quality of their work and improve the company’s ability to prevent risks; if you want such training tailored to your needs, contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, via email at office@arws.cz.

Notice: The information contained in this article is of a general informational nature only and serves for basic orientation in the topic based on the legal framework as of 2026. Although we take maximum care to ensure accuracy, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, an entity registered with the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for maximum client security we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no liability for any damage arising from the independent use of the information in this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: