The fact that an employee performs poorly, or that there is less work, does not in itself create a ground for dismissal. On the employer's initiative without fault on the part of the employee, a contract can be terminated only for the reasons listed in Article 57(1) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania (DK). Dismissal for work results is possible only where the shortcomings and the results not achieved have been set out in writing, a performance improvement plan covering at least two months has been drawn up jointly with the employee, and the results of that plan are unsatisfactory. Dismissal because of less work is possible only when the particular employee's function genuinely becomes redundant. For an employee who has worked for less than a year, the same grounds apply. The only differences are shorter notice and lower severance pay, and during probation, if one was agreed, the contract is easier to terminate.<\/p>\r\n
How much notice to give and what severance pay is due, we have covered in a separate article<\/a>. Which documents to prepare and in what order, in another<\/a>. Here we answer the earlier question: is there a ground at all?<\/p>\r\n Clients often ask it this way: the employee's results and work culture are not satisfactory, can we dismiss them? Or: the employee does not accept the proposed termination terms and is dragging things out, is that a ground?<\/p>\r\n The answer is the same in both cases. Article 57(1) DK gives an exhaustive list of reasons: a redundant job function, results not achieved under a performance improvement plan, refusal to work under changed terms, refusal to continue the employment relationship when the business is transferred, and the employer ceasing to exist. Dissatisfaction with an employee is not on the list. Nor is refusing a proposal or dragging out negotiations.<\/p>\r\n Dismissal for fault is a separate route. Article 58(1) DK ties it to the employee's culpable act or omission by which work duties are breached. Weak results without a breach of duties do not create this ground. When such a dismissal holds up in a dispute, we have written separately<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n The ground is Article 57(1)(2) DK: the employee does not achieve the agreed work results under a performance improvement plan. Article 57(5) DK sets four conditions. All of them must be met:<\/p>\r\n The word \"jointly\" matters. The plan is not an order from the employer. It is drawn up together with the employee, so its targets must be clear and understood in the same way by both parties.<\/p>\r\n In our practice this ground works most reliably where there is a complete system for planning and evaluating work results, common to all employees in the same position. Results are planned periodically, for example monthly, quarterly or yearly, and evaluated at the end of the period. It then becomes visible that the employee did not meet the plan and that their results are clearly worse than those of others. Only after that is an improvement plan drawn up. If the results do not improve under the plan either, the employee may be dismissed with notice and severance pay, as for the other grounds in Article 57(1) DK (Article 57(7) DK, Article 57(8) DK). In a small company without such a system, this ground is hard to prove. A short summary of these conditions is also in the dismissal service FAQ<\/a> (in Lithuanian).<\/p>\r\n A drop in orders or workload can be a reason under Article 57(1)(1) DK: the job function performed by the employee becomes redundant for the employer due to changes in the organisation of work or for other reasons related to the employer's activities.<\/p>\r\n Article 57(2) DK adds two conditions. The changes must be real and must make the job function of the particular employee, or group of employees, unnecessary. And from the notice until five working days before the end of the notice period, there must be no vacant position at the workplace to which the employee could be transferred with their consent.<\/p>\r\n If several employees perform the same function and only some of them are dismissed, the employer must approve selection criteria for the employees to be dismissed, agreeing them with the works council or, where there is none, with the trade union. The selection is carried out by a commission formed by the employer, which must include at least one member of the works council, and the priority right of the employees listed in the law to be retained must be ensured (Article 57(3) DK).<\/p>\r\n In our practice, the most common mistake is \"abolishing the post\" when in fact the aim is to part with a particular person, while the work remains. If another employee is soon hired into the same function, it is hard to prove that the function was redundant. So choose this route only when the function is genuinely no longer needed. A reorganisation or restructuring does not in itself create a ground (Article 51(1) DK). If several employees are dismissed within a short period, the collective dismissal procedure may apply (Article 63(1) DK). Dismissals at the employer's will and agreements initiated by the employer also count (Article 63(1) DK).<\/p>\r\n If work is short only temporarily, the law offers a different tool: idle time (prastova<\/em>). Article 47(1)(1) DK allows it to be declared when the employer cannot provide the agreed work for objective reasons not due to the employee's fault and the employee does not agree to do other work offered. Idle time is paid under Article 47(2) DK. It is not a ground for dismissal: neither \"recording\" idle time for a few days when there was less work, nor the lack of work itself, terminates the contract.<\/p>\r\n Another route is to propose changing the terms, for example working time. Article 45(1) DK requires the employee's written consent. The employee is given a period set by the employer to reply, which may not be shorter than five working days (Article 45(2) DK). A refusal can be a reason for terminating the contract under Article 57(1)(3) DK, but only where the proposal is based on significant reasons of economic, organisational or production necessity (Article 57(6) DK). And a refusal to work for reduced pay cannot be regarded as a lawful reason for terminating the contract (Article 45(2) DK). In our view, where the shorter working time proposed means lower pay, dismissing on the employee's refusal is risky. Assess this with a lawyer before making the proposal.<\/p>\r\n Short service does not create a new ground. The same grounds under Article 57(1) DK apply. The consequences differ: if the employment has lasted less than one year, notice is two weeks. For certain groups of employees this period is doubled or tripled; for example, for those raising a child under fourteen it is tripled (Article 57(7) DK). Severance pay is half of the average pay (Article 57(8) DK).<\/p>\r\nWhy \"not working as well as we would like\" is not yet a ground<\/h2>\r\n
Work results: what you need before you start<\/h2>\r\n
Less work: when is a function really redundant?<\/h2>\r\n
The employee has worked for less than a year<\/h2>\r\n