RegRally Insights: Migration Law and Employment

The April 2026 employment law update from ECOVIS explores the latest developments and examines the issues that matter most to employers.

Supreme Court of Lithuania on employee freedom of expression vs duty of loyalty

The Court clarified that an employee’s duty of loyalty cannot be interpreted as a blanket restriction on expressing personal beliefs unrelated to job functions.

Dismissal for expressing personal views (in this case, a doctor’s comments in a private interview) was unlawful where:

the statements were made in a personal capacity, not in the course of professional duties;
no actual reputational damage to the employer was demonstrated.

While employers may treat ethical breaches as serious misconduct, restrictions on expression are justified only when necessary to protect legitimate business interests related to job performance.

Our recommendation:

Assess the connection of statements to job functions before imposing disciplinary measures.Before recognising an employee’s public statements (e.g., in the media) as a gross violation of job duties, objectively determine whether they were made in the course of direct job functions (e.g., treating patients), rather than as personal or historical opinions within the area of expertise.
Prove actual negative impact on the employer’s interests.Imposing sanctions requires evidence of specific harm, such as complaints, dissatisfaction among subordinates, or reputational damage in the field.
Document internal rules and evaluation criteria.Clearly define boundaries between personal beliefs and job duties in employment contracts, codes of ethics, or internal regulations, including procedures for resolving disputes. This will help prevent court rulings annulling dismissals as unlawful.

Supreme Court of Lithuania: probationary dismissal – employer discretion and burden of proof

A negative probation outcome reflects the employer’s assessment that the employee is unsuitable, allowing a degree of subjectivity. In disputes, the employer must justify the reasons for unsatisfactory performance, but the burden of proof is lighter than in dismissals for fault.

Courts assess only whether the employer had reasonable grounds, acted fairly, and did not abuse its rights. They do not re-evaluate the employee’s suitability.

Unsatisfactory results may relate not only to qualifications or task performance, but also to factors such as work pace, independence, decision-making, and team fit.

Our recommendations:

Discussion of expectations. Clearly specify not only technical requirements but also specific criteria for managerial duties in the employment contract and the probationary period plan, thereby preventing disputes regarding the objectivity of the evaluation.
Properly documented employee evaluation. When terminating an employment contract during the probationary period, it is necessary to prepare a detailed written conclusion specifying the specific reasons (e.g., speed of task completion, independence in organising work, ability to work in a team).
Regular interim reviews. During the probationary period, organise periodic discussions with the employee to document progress assessments and identify any need for corrective action, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of the decision and demonstrating fair conduct.

Labour Disputes in Lithuania: 2025 Overview

In 2025, State Labour Inspectorate Labour Dispute Commissions received 8,984 claims, with wage-related disputes dominating (72%). Other frequent cases involved dismissals, non-material damage, contract terms, and liability.

Key trends include an increase in disputes over working time, psychological harassment, suspensions, and confidentiality agreements. Employees filed ~97% of claims, with most disputes in transport (22%), construction (12%), and manufacturing (9%). Foreign nationals accounted for ~23% of cases.

Outcomes: ~30% upheld (fully/partially), 19% rejected, 26% settled, and 13% withdrawn. Overall, ~39% were resolved amicably. Total awards reached €14.65 million, predominantly in favour of employees.

VDI issues practical guidelines on workplace harassment and psychological violence

The State Labour Inspectorate (VDI) introduced new guidelines for employees and employers addressing psychological violence and harassment, in response to rising complaints and low awareness.

Key points:

Employees are guided on where to report issues and the importance of timely evidence collection.
Employers must act immediately upon receiving a complaint—initiate an investigation within 3 working days, ensuring objectivity and clear communication.
Not all workplace tension qualifies as harassment; however, degrading or aggressive behaviour must be addressed without delay.

The guidelines aim to clarify procedures, strengthen employer response obligations, and improve workplace dispute handling.

We recommend the following actions:

1. Update Workplace Policies.Employers should revise internal policies to explicitly address violence and harassment, including unacceptable behaviour by employers or managers.

2. Implement Regular Training. We recommend conducting regular training for all employees and managers on preventing and addressing workplace violence and harassment.

3. Establish Confidential Reporting Channels.

4. Ensure Compliance. Employers should regularly review their practices and assign specific responsibilities to ensure compliance with the new regulations and avoid fines.

5. Support Victims. Employers should support victims by providing access to counselling, legal advice, and necessary adjustments to the working environment.

VDI requires employers to report measures on prolonged sitting and standing risks

The State Labour Inspectorate (VDI) has reminded employers of their duty to implement and report preventive measures addressing health risks from prolonged sitting and standing at work.

Key requirements:

A thematic inspection is underway via a list of selected companies notified by VDI.
Employers must submit information electronically via the EPDS system by 30 April 2026.
Required measures include ergonomic workplace adjustments, opportunities to alternate between sitting/standing, and employee awareness on health risks.

VDI expects timely compliance and effective implementation of preventive workplace health measures.

Employers should not treat this requirement as a purely formal reporting obligation. The submitted information may be used as a basis for further inspections, so it is important to ensure that the declared measures are actually implemented in practice.

Mutual termination of employment: key legal requirements

Termination of an employment contract by mutual agreement is a flexible way to end an employment relationship, based on the free and aligned will of both parties.

Its validity depends on a transparent and fair process, where:

terms are clearly presented and understood;
the employee has sufficient time to consider the offer;
the decision is made without pressure or ambiguity.

Courts and authorities assess not only the agreement itself, but also the circumstances of its conclusion. Clear terms and a well-documented process are essential to ensure legal certainty and reduce dispute risk.

Recommended Process for Employers (Mutual Termination under Article 54 of the Labour Code).

Step 1: Submit a written proposal (offer)

If the employer initiates termination, we recommend first providing the employee with a written proposal to terminate the employment contract by mutual agreement.

Step 2: Clearly define the terms in the proposal

The proposal must clearly set out all essential terms, including:

– the date of termination;

– the amount of compensation (if any);

– arrangements for unused annual leave; the final settlement procedure;

– any other relevant conditions.

Step 3: Allow time to consider the proposal

The employee must be given up to five working days to review the proposal and make an informed decision. During this period, the parties may discuss or negotiate the terms.

Step 4: Obtain written acceptance of the proposal

If the employee agrees, their acceptance must be expressed in writing. If no response is provided within five working days, the proposal is considered rejected.

Step 5: Formalise the mutual agreement

Once the terms are agreed upon, the parties should formalise them in a written mutual termination agreement signed by both parties.