A dispute is most often decided not by how serious the breach was but by three things: whether the breach was recorded in writing on the same day, whether a written explanation was requested from the employee, and whether the dismissal is proportionate. Article 58(4) of the Labour Code (DK) makes requesting an explanation mandatory. Article 58(5) DK requires the seriousness of the breach, its consequences, the circumstances, the employee's fault and the employee's conduct before the breach to be assessed. In practice, it is precisely Article 58(5) DK that decides these cases.<\/p>\r\n
The law lists what is considered a gross breach of work duties. Two of those grounds are the most relevant for employers.<\/p>\r\n
Article 58(3)(2) DK \u2014 appearing at the workplace during working hours under the influence of alcohol, or intoxicated by narcotic, toxic or psychotropic substances, except where such intoxication was caused by the performance of professional duties.<\/p>\r\n
Article 58(3)(5) DK \u2014 intentionally causing pecuniary damage to the employer, or attempting to intentionally cause it pecuniary damage. In practice, theft from the employer also falls under this point.<\/p>\r\n
We say this openly, because this is our own assessment drawn from cases, not a rule of law and not a rule formulated by a court.<\/p>\r\n
Drunkenness and theft are the hardest to challenge. These are the grounds on which a dismissal most often stands. The reason is simple: the fact can be recorded objectively, and the proportionality assessment almost always comes out in the employer's favour.<\/p>\r\n
With disclosure of a trade secret, the position is different. A court may find the dismissal disproportionate even where the breach has been proven. Most often this is because the employer does not show actual damage, or does not assess the employee's previous conduct and work performance, as Article 58(5) DK requires. The breach remains a breach, but the dismissal is a disproportionate measure.<\/p>\r\n
The practical conclusion for employers: if the ground is a trade secret, before dismissing you need to gather evidence not only of the breach but also of its consequences.<\/p>\r\n
The client came to us after the dismissal, once the employee had filed a claim. The breach was real and there was no shortage of witnesses. The problem was one: the report had been drawn up roughly a month after the incident, when it had already become clear that there would be a dispute.<\/p>\r\n
A report like that carries little weight in court. It was written knowing the outcome, not recording a fact.<\/p>\r\n
So our practical recommendation \u2014 not a legal requirement \u2014 is this: record the breach in writing on the same day. One page is enough. Who, when, where, what was seen, who was present, what damage was done. The signatures of those who saw it. And on the same day, a written request for an explanation.<\/p>\r\n
The law also limits the time within which the decision may be taken: the employer must take the decision to terminate the employment contract within one month of the breach coming to light and within six months of its commission. This is laid down in Article 58(6) DK; the six-month time limit is extended to two years if the breach comes to light as a result of an audit, a stocktaking or an inspection of activities. From 1 November 2026, these time limits are counted without the time the employee was absent from work due to temporary incapacity for work or leave; breaches committed by 31 October 2026 remain subject to the rules in force until then. The practical meaning is clear: the later you record it, the less time is left.<\/p>\r\n
In another case, everything was done quickly. The breach was recorded on the same day, and the decision was taken within a week. Only one thing was not requested \u2014 a written explanation from the employee.<\/p>\r\n
Article 58(4) DK makes this step mandatory. There is only one exception: where the employee does not provide an explanation within a reasonable period set by the employer. This means you must always ask, even when the answer seems unnecessary. Failing to send the request is a procedural error that can no longer be put right later.<\/p>\r\n
The same part sets an additional condition for a second breach of the same kind: the contract may be terminated only if the first breach was also established, the employee had the opportunity to explain it, and, within one month of the breach coming to light, the employer warned the employee of possible dismissal for a second such breach. From 1 November 2026, the time the employee was absent from work due to temporary incapacity for work or leave is not counted in that month (Article 58(4) DK). In practice, the warning of possible dismissal is what is missing most often.<\/p>\r\n
A dispute almost always requires the average pay figure \u2014 it is the basis for calculating the pay awarded for the period of forced absence from work and, where the employee is not reinstated, the compensation (Article 218(2) and (4) DK).<\/p>\r\n
It is calculated from the last 3 calendar months preceding the month for which average pay is being paid. This is laid down in point 5.1 of the Description of the Procedure for Calculating Average Pay (Vidutinio darbo u\u017emokes\u010dio skai\u010diavimo tvarkos apra\u0161as<\/em>), approved by Government Resolution No 496 of 21 June 2017. In disputes, the calculation is usually based on a certificate from the accountant, and we recommend preparing it in advance.<\/p>\r\n The Description contains separate rules; for example, annual bonuses are included under point 5.9. The Description has been amended more than once, so check the version in force for the specific case: a mistake changes the entire amount of the claim.<\/p>\r\n Do not dismiss on the same day you find out. First the record and the request for an explanation, and only then the decision. Do not state the ground in general terms in the dismissal order. Cite the specific point and the specific factual circumstances. And do not rely on witness statements alone where objective evidence is possible.<\/p>\r\n Send us the documents recording the breach, the employment contract and the job description. We will give you a first assessment \u2014 whether the ground will withstand a dispute and what is missing \u2014 free of charge. If you have already received a claim, tell us the date you received it.<\/p>\r\n Tel. +370 5 212 1506, email info@linden.lt<\/p>\r\nWhat not to do<\/h2>\r\n
How to start<\/h2>\r\n