Objectives: This paper presents the results of research on the scale of psychosocial risks among miners. A comparative analysis was made, comparing the research results with the data obtained from workers in the following industries: metal, energy, chemical and construction – along with an indication of the relationship between stressful working conditions and the occupational functioning of the respondents. Material and Methods: The study involved 483 adults employed in mines in Poland. The study on psychosocial risks in the workplace was performed using Psychosocial Risk Scale, developed by the Department of Health and Work Psychology of the Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland. Psychosocial Risk Scale is the scientifically validated diagnostic tool and is characterized by high reliability and validity of coefficients. Results: The analysis of differences in occupational functioning between miners and other workers in heavy industry provides that miners are in general more healthy, less stressed, more positive emotionally and normatively committed to work, more satisfied with work, and more stable in the employment (as opposite to turnover intention) than the other workers. The results suggest that miners with a lower level of stress functioned at work better – they evaluated their health and ability to work better than miners with a higher level of stress. Their intention to change a job was lower than among those experiencing more stress. The most pronounced effect was observed for the influence on this dimension of functioning by job context risks (the higher level of probability, and the higher t-test value). Conclusions: Occupational functioning of miners in Poland is better than the other employees in heavy industry. The analysis of differences in occupational functioning dimensions provides that a lower level of psychosocial risk in a workplace is connected with a higher level of job satisfaction, positive affective and normative work commitment and a lower level of turnover intension. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019;32(1):87–98