Employment law continues to evolve, with employers facing a combination of legislative reforms, important court judgments and increasing regulatory expectations. This month’s developments include significant amendments to the Lithuanian Labour Code, new social insurance obligations, updated rules on adoption leave, and practical guidance on managing workplace health and safety during heatwaves.
At the European level, the Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered important judgments on the admissibility of GDPR-related evidence in employment disputes, collective redundancy procedures, and employee rights in business transfers. Meanwhile, new corporate governance requirements on gender balance and forthcoming EU rules on protection against carcinogenic substances signal the continued expansion of employers’ compliance obligations.
This edition of RegRally Insights: Employment & Migration highlights the key developments that employers, HR professionals, and in-house legal teams should be aware of, along with practical recommendations to help organisations prepare for the upcoming changes and minimise employment-related legal risks.
Quick Navigation
- Second Labour Code Amendment
- Use of Unlawfully Obtained Personal Data as Evidence in Employment Litigation (NTH Haustechnik C-484/24)
- New Social Insurance Law “Contribution Floor” for Employees with Multiple Employers
- Adoption Leave Window Shortened but Leave Becomes Splittable
- Employers Must Organise Work Safely During Heatwaves
- Gender Balance Requirements for Large Companies’ Boards Takes Effect
- Commission Welcomes Political Agreement to Protect Workers from Cancer-Causing Chemicals
- Court of Justice of the European Union Judgement C-907/24 (Orefice Generators)
- Court of Justice of the European Union Judgement C-216/25 (GSP Offshore)
- Need assistance?
Second Labour Code Amendment
Significant amendments to the Labour Code were adopted and will enter into force on 1 November 2026.
Key changes include:
- Late payment penalties for employment-related payments are increased – meaning that with default interest linked to the consumer price index and multiplied by five, creating stronger incentives for employers to pay wages and other employment-related amounts on time;
- Clearer rules on final settlement upon termination of employment are introduced: amounts up to one average monthly wage must generally be paid on the employee’s last working day (unless otherwise agreed, up to 10 working days), while larger amounts may be postponed but no longer than three months after termination;
- Employees retain full remuneration for the working hours reduced before public holidays; where remuneration depends on work output or performance standards, employees must receive average remuneration for the shortened hours;
- A new ground for termination of employment is introduced where an employee no longer meets the statutory good reputation requirements applicable to their position;
- Highly remunerated employees earning at least twice the national average wage may agree to greater contractual flexibility. The amendments expand the range of Labour Code provisions from which the parties may agree to deviate, including certain aspects of employment termination. In addition, such employees may be subject to a probationary period of up to six months, rather than the general three-month limit.
Recommended actions
Employers should familiarise themselves with the upcoming amendments and assess whether the new flexibility introduced by the Labour Code could be beneficial in their organisation. In particular, employers may wish to consider opportunities relating to the engagement of highly remunerated employees, termination processes, internal investigation procedures and settlement arrangements upon termination of employment.
Date: 25 June 2026
Use of Unlawfully Obtained Personal Data as Evidence in Employment Litigation (NTH Haustechnik C-484/24)
The CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-484/24, NTH Haustechnik, addressing whether a court may rely on evidence (e.g. emails, screenshots, messages from private accounts) where the underlying personal data was likely obtained unlawfully by the party submitting it. A scenario that arises frequently in employment disputes.
The Court rejected both extreme positions: evidence is not automatically ‘cleansed’ simply by being placed on the court file, nor does a breach of data protection rules automatically render evidence inadmissible. The Court held that a court’s own task of assessing evidence constitutes a valid legal basis for processing the personal data it contains, provided the court observes the limits imposed by the GDPR and ensures a fair balance between data protection and the right to a fair trial.
Besides, the party that obtained the data unlawfully may still face separate civil liability or administrative penalties under the GDPR.
Recommended actions
- Note that evidence obtained by an employee or employer through questionable means (e.g. screenshots of private chats) may still be admitted in a labour dispute, but this does not eliminate GDPR liability for the party who collected it;
- Continue to apply lawful, documented methods for gathering workplace evidence (e.g. in misconduct investigations) to avoid separate GDPR exposure.
Source: CJEU | Date: 18 June 2026
New Social Insurance Law “Contribution Floor” for Employees with Multiple Employers
The Seimas adopted amendments to the Law on State Social Insurance to address a gap in which employees working part-time for several employers, each paying below the minimum monthly wage (MMA), ended up with minimal social insurance coverage overall. The change applies from 1 January 2027.
Under the new rule, where the combined income an employee receives from all of their employers is below the MMA (EUR 1,153 gross in 2026), Sodra will identify the shortfall based on monthly reporting from all employers and issue additional social insurance contribution invoices to the relevant employer(s), proportionally, so that contributions are effectively paid on at least the MMA in aggregate. Employers must settle any additional invoiced amounts by the 15th day of the following month (e.g. contributions relating to June pay must be settled by 15 July).
Source: Ministry of Social Security and Labour | Date: 25 June 2026
Adoption Leave Window Shortened but Leave Becomes Splittable
From 1 July 2026, an amendment to Article 133(2) of the Lithuanian Labour Code changes the terms on which adoptive parents can take their statutory paternity leave:
- The window in which the leave must be taken is shortened from three months to one month, counted from the date the court’s adoption decision becomes final (or, where the decision is subject to immediate enforcement, from the date enforcement begins);
- In exchange for that shorter window, the leave – previously required to be taken as one uninterrupted 30-day block – can now be split into up to two separate parts, giving adoptive parents more flexibility in how they schedule the time off around the practicalities of the adoption process.
Recommended actions
- HR teams should update internal leave policies and payroll to reflect the new one-month deadline and the option to split the leave;
- Make sure managers understand that a request may now come in two separate blocks rather than one.
Date: 01 July 2026
Employers Must Organise Work Safely During Heatwaves
The State Labour Inspectorate (VDI) issued a reminder that high workplace temperature is not merely a temporary inconvenience but a genuine occupational health and safety risk, particularly for outdoor work, work in direct sunlight, poorly ventilated premises, or physically demanding tasks.
VDI reiterated the applicable temperature limits:
- For office-type work not requiring significant physical exertion, indoor temperature during the warm season should not exceed 28°C;
- For physically demanding work, it should not exceed 26°C;
- For employees working outdoors when the ambient temperature exceeds 28°C, special breaks must be provided at least every 1.5 hours, with a minimum total break duration of 40 minutes over an 8-hour shift (proportionally adjusted for other shift lengths).
VDI highlighted construction, road works, agriculture, greenhouses, railways, quarries, kitchens, bakeries, laundries, foundries, and glass/ceramics/brick production as sectors of particular risk and reminded employers that heat does not exempt them from mandatory PPE requirements (e.g. helmets on construction sites).
Recommended actions
- Monitor weather forecasts and proactively schedule physically demanding outdoor tasks outside the 11:00 – 17:00 peak-heat window;
- Ensure adequate ventilation/cooling in indoor workplaces.
Source: VDI | Date: 26 June 2026
Gender Balance Requirements for Large Companies’ Boards Takes Effect
Under EU Directive (EU) 2022/2381 on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies, which was transposed into Lithuanian law through amendments to the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men.
From 30 June 2026, large companies must ensure that persons from underrepresented genders hold at least 40% of non-executive director positions, or at least 33% of all director positions (executive and non-executive combined).
That is important because large companies had to submit their first gender equality report to the Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson by 1 June 2026. Report is mandatory even for companies that already meet the target – they still need to document how the selection process was kept transparent and what measures maintain the balance.
Source: Office of the Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson | Date: 30 June 2026
Commission Welcomes Political Agreement to Protect Workers from Cancer-Causing Chemicals
The European Commission welcomed a provisional political agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the sixth revision of the Carcinogens, Mutagens and Reprotoxic Substances Directive (Directive 2004/37/EC, “CMRD”), which sets EU minimum requirements for protecting workers from exposure to carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxic substances.
The revision introduces new or stricter occupational exposure limits for EV battery, magnet, and hard-metal production; steel, iron, and aluminium production; chemical/textile production; chemical and rubber industries; and it also brings welding fumes within the Directive’s scope. Transitional periods are set at 6 years or 7 years, to give the industry time to adapt.
The agreed text still needs formal adoption by Parliament and Council, after which Member States, including Lithuania, will need to transpose it into national law within the agreed deadline.
Source: European Commission | Date: 24 June 2026
Court of Justice of the European Union Judgement C-907/24 (Orefice Generators)
Transfer of the place of work and the collective redundancy procedure
The employer decided to cease operations at its production site in Campania and transfer them to Sardinia, located more than 600 km away; the trade unions represented in the company were informed of the decision that same day. The transfer decision was notified to the workers, stating that it would take effect from 4 October. After the workers failed to relocate to Sardinia, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings against them for unauthorised absences exceeding 30 days and dismissed all of them.
The Court held that, in the absence of an express definition, the concept of “redundancy” under Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted broadly and covers any termination of an employment contract not sought by the worker (paras 44–46). Where an employer unilaterally and to the worker’s detriment makes significant changes to essential elements of the employment contract for reasons not related to the individual worker concerned, such a change falls within the concept of “redundancy” (paras 47–48). The place of work may be regarded as an essential element of the contract, and whether a change is significant depends, among other things, on whether it is temporary, on the distance between the original and the new place of work, and on any accompanying compensatory measures (paras 52–53). In the present case, the transfer was permanent (a consequence of the cessation of activity in Campania), and the two sites were more than 600 km apart, so this amounts to a significant change to an essential element (paras 54–55). Accordingly, the termination of an employment contract following a worker’s refusal to comply with a unilateral decision to transfer the place of work falls within the concept of “redundancy” (para 56).
The Court ruled that such terminations cannot be excluded from the calculation of the number of redundancies against the thresholds laid down by the directive merely because national law sets a lower threshold (of five redundancies); otherwise, the workers would be deprived of the protection the directive affords, and the very concept of “redundancy” would lose its uniform interpretation (paras 57–61).
Recommended actions
- Treat a transfer as a potential “indirect redundancy.” If you plan to unilaterally transfer a worker’s place of work, assess in advance whether this constitutes a significant change to an essential term of the employment contract — if so, any resulting termination is, for the purposes of EU law, equivalent to a redundancy.
- Take account of distance, permanence, and compensation. Significance is determined by whether the transfer is temporary, the distance between the original and new locations, and whether compensatory measures (e.g., relocation costs, allowances) are provided. The greater the distance and the more permanent the change, the more likely it is to be classified as a redundancy.
- Include such terminations in the redundancy count. When calculating whether the collective redundancy threshold is reached, include terminations arising from workers’ refusal to accept the transfer — they cannot be automatically disregarded.
- Carry out the information and consultation procedure in advance. If such a change affects a sufficient number of workers, properly inform and consult the workers’ representatives before making the decision — merely informing them of a decision already taken is not enough.
Source: CJEU | Date: 4 June 2026
Court of Justice of the European Union Judgement C-216/25 (GSP Offshore)
Transfer of an undertaking and the transfer of outstanding wages to the transferee
ZN worked for GSP Offshore on an oil platform. GSP Offshore informed all its employees, including ZN, that — because of a transfer of the undertaking— they would be taken over by OMV Petrom, which became their new employer. OMV Petrom informed ZN that responsibility for the wages GSP Offshore owed, as at the transfer date, for work performed before the transfer remained with the transferor, and that it therefore did not assume that obligation.
The Court recalled that, under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23, the transferor’s rights and obligations arising from a contract of employment in force on the date of the transfer are, by reason of that transfer, automatically transferred to the transferee, while the second subparagraph allows (but does not require) Member States to provide for joint and several liability of the transferor and the transferee.
The Court emphasised that the transferor is released from its obligations as employer by reason of the transfer alone, without the need for the workers’ consent; workers retain only the right to decide freely whether to continue the employment relationship with the new employer (paras 37–43). The transfer covers all the workers’ rights — those arising both before and after the transfer — and responsibility for them lies primarily with the transferee (paras 44–45).
The Court held that, when interpreting Article 3(1), no reliance can be placed on a national rule under which the transfer of a debt requires the creditor’s consent.
The Court held that Article 8 of the Directive (which allows the application of national provisions more favourable to workers) likewise does not permit such a creditor-consent rule: even if it were regarded as more favourable to the worker, it would undermine the minimum protection guaranteed by the Directive and the automatic-transfer principle, thereby prejudicing the Directive’s coherence and the objectives it pursues (paras 59–65).
Recommended actions
- The transferee automatically takes on outstanding wage obligations, too. When taking over an undertaking, business, or part of one (even merely a group of workers, without any assets), bear in mind that all of the transferor’s obligations towards workers accrued before the transfer pass with it — their transfer cannot be made conditional on the worker’s consent.
- Clearly regulate liability for pre-existing arrears in the transfer agreement. Since the obligation to pay wages owed before the transfer lies primarily with the transferee, provide at the time of the transaction for how those liabilities will be covered to avoid subsequent disputes.
- Avoid structures that could be assessed as abuse. A transfer to an insolvent transferee, or one lacking real funds, made to escape the obligation to pay outstanding wages, may be found by a national court to constitute fraud or an abuse of EU law — such an arrangement will not shield the transferor from liability.
Source: CJEU | Date: 11 June 2026
Need assistance?
Employment law is evolving rapidly, with new legislative requirements, court judgments and regulatory expectations affecting employers across sectors.
Our Employment & Migration Law specialists can assist with:
- Employment law compliance reviews and Labour Code gap assessments
- Employment contracts, internal policies and HR documentation
- Workplace investigations and disciplinary procedures
- Collective redundancies, restructurings and business transfers
- Executive employment, termination strategies and settlement agreements
- Working time, remuneration and employee benefits compliance
- Occupational health and safety obligations
- Employment disputes, regulatory investigations and labour inspections
- Employment-related GDPR and workplace privacy matters
If you have any questions regarding the regulatory developments covered in this edition or would like to assess your organisation’s employment law compliance, our team will be happy to assist you.
About the Author:
Loreta Andziulytė is an Attorney at Law and Partner at ECOVIS ProventusLaw. Having more than 20 years’ experience, she is ranked in FinTech Legal by Chambers and Partners FinTech Legal (2020, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026), ranked in Employment Law by Chambers and Partners (2023, 2024, 2025, 2026), and recognised in Employment, TMT, Dispute Resolution, Tax and FinTech by The Legal 500 (2019–2025).
Loreta is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/E) and head of the firm’s technology team. She specializes in FinTech licensing, regulatory affairs, and data protection, guiding international financial institutions through complex compliance frameworks.
Newsletter Subscription
Get in touch