This is an unofficial translation of the decision of the Lithuanian labour disputes commission, provided for information only. The Lithuanian original is authoritative. Read the original (Lithuanian)

Labour case No. [anonymised]

OF THE STATE LABOUR INSPECTORATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

UNDER THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND LABOUR

VILNIUS LABOUR DISPUTES COMMISSION

DECISION

27 May 2026 No. [anonymised]

Vilnius

The Vilnius Labour Disputes Commission of the State Labour Inspectorate of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the chairman [anonymised] and members [anonymised] and [anonymised], with [anonymised] acting as secretary, in the absence of the claimant [anonymised] and in the presence of the defendant’s representative [anonymised], having examined remotely the labour case on the application of the claimant [anonymised] against the defendant [anonymised] for the recovery of payments related to the employment relationship,

has found:

I. The claimant’s claims and arguments

On 30 April 2026 the claimant [anonymised] applied to the Labour Disputes Commission asking it to examine an individual labour dispute concerning the recovery of payments related to the employment relationship. In the application the claimant states that the employer did not pay him daily allowances and compensation for unused leave for the entire period of the employment relationship. The claimant applied to the employer for a final settlement, but the employer gave a written reply stating that he had been paid in full.

The claimant asks the Labour Disputes Commission to recover from the defendant, in the claimant’s favour, €6,000 in daily allowances and compensation for unused leave for the period from 26 September 2024 to 20 April 2026.

II. The defendant’s objections and arguments

The defendant submitted documents relating to the case and a response. In its response of 18 May 2026 the defendant did not acknowledge the claimant’s claims. The defendant states that a full and timely settlement was made with the claimant in accordance with the requirements of Article 146 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania. The claims made by the employee after dismissal are unfounded. The defendant asks the Labour Disputes Commission to dismiss all of the employee’s claims against the defendant.

The claimant did not attend the hearing of the Labour Disputes Commission. The labour case is examined in the absence of the claimant (Article 226(2) of the Labour Code).

At the hearing the defendant’s representative upheld the response on the grounds set out in it and confirmed that a final settlement had been made with the claimant. She stated that the claims made by the claimant are abstract and unfounded and therefore asked that the claimant’s claims be dismissed in full.

The application is to be dismissed.

The Commission

has established:

In the present case, a dispute arose between the parties over the payment to the claimant of wages (daily allowances) and other payments related to the employment relationship; the claimant worked for the defendant as a driver of an international freight transport vehicle.

On the recovery of payments related to the employment relationship.

The case data show that on 26 September 2024 the claimant concluded employment contract No. [anonymised] with the defendant, on the basis of which he worked as a driver of an international freight transport vehicle. In the employment contract, the parties agreed that the employer undertakes to pay the employee €1,525.

According to data from the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund, the parties were in an employment relationship from 27 September 2024 to 20 April 2026. The employment contract was terminated under Article 55(1) of the Labour Code. The data of the Board of the State Social Insurance Fund show that €1,243.86 was declared for the claimant in April 2026.

The case file shows that on 20 April 2026 the defendant paid the claimant €1,687.11.

By stating that the defendant has not paid him €6,000 in daily allowances and compensation for unused leave for the entire period of employment, the claimant bears the burden of proving the circumstances on which he bases his claims. A merely declaratory claim for the award of amounts related to the employment relationship does not release the claimant from the duty to state clearly and specifically in the application the circumstances on which the claim is based and to formulate the subject matter of the claim precisely. This means that it is not sufficient for the claimant to limit himself to a general statement that the defendant did not pay daily allowances and compensation for unused leave. Under the general rule, the parties, guided by the principles of adversarial proceedings and party autonomy, bear the burden of proof, under which each party must submit evidence of the circumstances on which it bases its claims or objections.

It should be noted that case law takes the position that a claimant has a duty to cooperate during the proceedings, to act honestly and reasonably, and to submit the evidence that he has and is able to obtain. The claimant did not attend the hearing of the Labour Disputes Commission that had been scheduled, although he had been duly informed of it.

A claimant must be active in defending his rights, must take an interest in the progress of the labour case and must prove that his claims are well founded. Where the claimant has provided no evidence supporting his claims, has not attended the hearing, has not provided explanations and has not properly looked after the exercise of his rights, he bears the adverse consequences arising from this. The application of labour law rules does not mean applying exclusively rules that favour the employee, because the interests of one legal subject cannot be denied at the expense of another, and a reasonable and fair balance of those interests must be sought.

In the application the claimant did not specify any calculations, circumstances or evidence on which he bases the claims made against the defendant. The statements set out in the claimant’s application are too declaratory, based on subjective beliefs and hypothetical assumptions, and are therefore considered unfounded and unproven.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania, in its case law, has repeatedly stated that a claimant must prove the circumstances on which he bases his claims, and that subjective statements alone, unsupported by admissible and sufficient evidence, give no grounds for granting them.

In the present case it has been established that the claimant, who worked for the defendant for more than a year and a half, never expressed any objections or complaints, either before concluding the employment contract or when concluding it, about the working conditions set out in the employment contract, that is, that he did not understand the calculation of daily allowances, that the pay was calculated improperly, that the pay was too low, or that the working conditions were unsuitable. It is therefore considered that the terms agreed in the employment contract in Russian, the pay, and the procedure for calculating and paying daily allowances were undoubtedly clear and understandable to the claimant.

By raising no objections during the employment relationship, the claimant in fact agreed to work under the established pay conditions.

Where a dispute arises between the parties to an employment contract over the payment of amounts related to the employment relationship, the employer bears the burden of proving that proper payment was made. Where the employer has submitted to the labour case accounting data and documents confirming financial transactions that prove the fact of payment to the employee, the employee’s claim for the recovery of payments related to the employment relationship is to be dismissed.

The Labour Disputes Commission, guided by Article 216(1)(1) and Article 228(2) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania,

has decided:

to dismiss the application of the claimant [anonymised] against the defendant [anonymised] for the recovery of payments related to the employment relationship as unfounded.

If a party to a labour dispute disagrees with the decision of the Labour Disputes Commission, that party has the right, within one month of the date on which the Commission’s decision was adopted, to bring a claim before a court for the examination of the labour dispute on a matter of right, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. The claim is submitted to the District Court. The decision of the Labour Disputes Commission is not subject to appeal or review. The decision of the Labour Disputes Commission is enforced in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 230(1) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania.

Chairman of the Commission [anonymised]