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

ALYTUS LABOUR DISPUTES COMMISSION

DECISION

30 June 2026 No. [anonymised]

Alytus

The Alytus Labour Disputes Commission, composed of the chairwoman [anonymised] and members [anonymised], with [anonymised] acting as secretary, in the presence of the claimant [anonymised] and his representative [anonymised], and of the representative [anonymised] of the defendant [anonymised], at a hearing of the Labour Disputes Commission held remotely, examined the application of the claimant [anonymised] against the defendant [anonymised] for a declaration that the termination of the employment contract was unlawful and for the satisfaction of monetary claims.

has found:

The claimant applied to the Labour Disputes Commission asking for the termination of his employment contract under Article 58 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania to be declared unlawful. The claimant also asked for the award from the defendant of average pay for the period of forced absence from the date of termination of the employment relationship to the date of enforcement of the decision, and of compensation equal to three of his average salaries, that is, €6,359.05. The claimant asked not to be reinstated.

The claimant stated that he had worked for the defendant since 25 June 2018 as a controller of the mandatory technical inspection of vehicles. By the defendant’s order of 31 March 2026, the employment contract with him was terminated with effect from 1 April 2026 under Article 58(3) of the LC, at the employer’s initiative on grounds of the employee’s fault.

The claimant explained that on 30 March 2026 he carried out a mandatory technical inspection of a vehicle, during which he identified no defects in the vehicle. On the same day, controllers of the Lithuanian Transport Safety Administration carried out a control check and identified three defects: a gas cylinder fill level indicator that was not working, an electrical connection between the vehicle and the trailer that was not working properly, and a vehicle control device related to operational safety that was not working. In view of these circumstances, the claimant submitted a written explanation to the employer.

According to the claimant, in deciding to terminate the employment contract the employer did not assess all the relevant circumstances, as required by Article 58(4) of the LC. The claimant stated that the seriousness of the breaches, their consequences, the employee’s fault, the causal link and previous work results had not been properly analysed, and that it had not been assessed whether dismissal is a proportionate measure.

The claimant took the position that the order merely made formal references to breaches of the job description and the work procedure rules, but gave no reasons why the specific breaches should be regarded as a gross breach of work duties and why the strictest measure of disciplinary liability, termination of the employment contract, was chosen.

The claimant also stated that the employer had not assessed the explanations he provided. According to him, some of the vehicle’s defects could have arisen or been recorded during the control check, while at the time of his technical inspection the vehicle was allegedly in good order. As regards the vehicle control device, the claimant explained that during the technical inspection he had checked the steering lock mechanism but had not tried to remove the ignition key while the engine was running.

The claimant noted that he had worked for the defendant for almost eight years, had not been penalised for breaches of work duties in the last twelve months, had received no warnings about improper performance of work duties, and that, to his knowledge, employment contracts of other employees had not been terminated in similar cases. For these reasons, the claimant took the position that the defendant had applied the strictest measure of liability without justification and disproportionately.

The defendant disagreed with the claimant’s application and asked for it to be dismissed as unfounded. The defendant stated that the employment contract with the claimant had been terminated lawfully and with justification, pursuant to Article 58 of the LC, because the claimant had committed a gross breach of work duties.

According to the defendant, the claimant, working as a controller of the mandatory technical inspection of vehicles, carried out a technical inspection of a vehicle and decided that the vehicle met the technical requirements, but during a control check by the competent authorities on the same day it was established that three major defects in the vehicle’s technical condition had not been identified during the technical inspection. As a result, the vehicle was found not to meet the technical requirements.

The defendant stated that the claimant had been properly familiarised with the employment contract, the job description, the work procedure rules and the legal acts regulating technical inspection activity. After receiving the findings of the control check, an official report on a possible breach of work duties was drawn up, the claimant was given the opportunity to submit a written explanation, an internal investigation was carried out and the circumstances listed in Article 58(4) of the LC were assessed.

The defendant noted that during the internal investigation the following were assessed: the nature and seriousness of the breach, its significance for the result of the technical inspection, the possible consequences for road safety, the employee’s fault, the explanations provided, qualifications, previous work, the principle of proportionality, the possibility of applying milder measures, and the loss of the employer’s trust in the employee.

In the defendant’s assessment, the functions performed by a technical inspection controller are related to road safety, so these duties are based on the employer’s special trust. The controller independently decides on a vehicle’s fitness to take part in road traffic, and the employer has no possibility of checking each of his actions in real time.

The defendant stated that the breaches identified were related not to formal inaccuracies in completing documents, but to the real technical condition of the vehicle and the possible effect on road safety. The defendant also stated that the claimant himself, in his explanation, admitted that he had not carried out all the vehicle inspection steps necessary for a proper assessment of its technical condition.

The defendant also stated that, before the dispute arose, breaches of work duties of a similar nature by the claimant had been identified several times during control checks. The claimant had been given warnings, an additional performance review had been organised, and he had been warned that a repeated breach of a similar nature could lead to termination of the employment contract under Article 58 of the LC.

The claimant’s application is to be dismissed.

Under Article 213(3) of the LC, an individual labour dispute on a matter of right is a disagreement between an employee and an employer arising on the conclusion, amendment, performance or termination of an employment contract, or from the failure to apply, or the improper application of, legal rules in the employment relationship.

The Commission found that an individual labour dispute on a matter of right, falling within the competence of the Labour Disputes Commission, had arisen between the parties.

On the lawfulness of the termination of the employment relationship.

The claimant asked for the termination of the employment contract under Article 58(2)(1) of the LC to be declared unlawful. The Commission noted that termination of an employment contract for an employee’s gross breach of work duties may be applied only where there are grounds for it, that is, where a breach of work duties is established as a result of the employee’s culpable act or omission.

The Commission stated that, in deciding whether a particular breach of work duties is to be classed as gross, it is necessary to analyse its objective and subjective features: the nature of the employee’s unlawful conduct, the negative consequences arising from the breach, the degree and form of the employee’s fault, the influence of the actions of other persons on the breach, and other important circumstances.

The Commission found that the claimant, when carrying out the mandatory technical inspection of the vehicle, did not identify three major defects in the vehicle’s technical condition, although the officials who carried out the control check identified these defects on the same day and concluded that the vehicle did not meet the technical requirements.

In the Commission’s assessment, the claimant did not essentially refute this circumstance. On the contrary, in his written explanation he admitted that he had not carried out one of the mandatory inspection steps, because he had not tried to remove the ignition key while the engine was running. This circumstance confirmed that the vehicle’s technical condition had been assessed without carrying out all the mandatory inspection steps.

The Commission also noted that administrative liability had been applied to the claimant for the breaches identified. The fact that the claimant did not use his right to challenge the report of an administrative offence drawn up against him and the administrative penalty imposed, but paid the fine imposed, does not in itself mean an unconditional admission of fault in the sense of employment law, but is to be assessed together with the other evidence in the case.

The Commission agreed with the defendant’s arguments that the duties of a technical inspection controller are related to increased professional responsibility and the protection of the public interest. Whether technically sound vehicles take part in road traffic depends directly on the decisions made by the controller, so these duties carry exceptionally high requirements of care, professionalism and responsibility.

The Commission found that where major defects in a vehicle’s technical condition are not identified, a technically unsound vehicle is given the opportunity to take part in road traffic, so such a breach cannot be regarded as formal or insignificant.

The Commission did not agree with the claimant’s argument that the employer had not assessed the criteria set out in Article 58(4) of the LC. The internal investigation material, the order terminating the employment contract and the defendant’s explanations show that, before the decision was taken, the claimant’s explanation was requested, an internal investigation was carried out, and the nature of the breach, its significance for road safety, the claimant’s fault, previous work, professional preparation, the possibility of applying milder measures and the loss of trust in the employee were assessed.

The Commission also assessed the claimant’s argument that other employees had not been dismissed in similar cases. During the hearing of the case the defendant submitted additional data showing that in other cases employees were given warnings and an extraordinary performance review, but those employees had not previously committed similar breaches of work duties. By contrast, the claimant had previously been given a warning for a breach of a similar nature and had been warned about the possible consequences of termination of the employment contract in the event of a repeated similar breach.

The case established that similar breaches of work duties by the claimant had been identified earlier. Disciplinary measures were applied to him for these breaches and he was given the opportunity to continue working. In the Commission’s assessment, the defendant consistently applied milder measures, but they did not achieve their purpose, because breaches of a similar nature were repeated.

The Commission found that the defendant reasonably took into account not only the breach identified on the day of the dispute, but also the claimant’s earlier performance of his work duties. Given the nature of the functions performed by a technical inspection controller, systematically repeated similar breaches reasonably reduced the employer’s trust in the claimant’s ability to perform his duties properly.

The Commission also assessed the claimant’s arguments about the circumstances in which the internal investigation report was drawn up and about alleged inaccuracies. The Commission noted that the mere fact that the internal investigation report contains inaccuracies in dates does not in itself confirm that the internal investigation was carried out formally or that the report was drawn up after the dispute had arisen. The case contained no objective data supporting the claimant’s assumption that the internal investigation report had been prepared after the application to the Labour Disputes Commission.

The claimant also stated that, before the decision to terminate the employment contract was taken, he had not been shown the internal investigation report, and that, in his opinion, his right to a proper defence and to give explanations had therefore been violated.

The Commission noted that, under Article 58(4) of the LC, the employer must request a written explanation from the employee about a possible breach of work duties. The case established that the claimant had been given the opportunity to submit an explanation, which he used. The employee’s right, laid down by law, to be heard before a decision is taken was therefore ensured.

The Commission also noted that neither the Labour Code nor other legal acts regulating employment relationships lay down an obligation for the employer to show the employee the internal investigation report or other internal investigation documents before the decision is taken. The internal investigation report is the employer’s internal document, intended for assessing the circumstances collected and substantiating the decision.

The Commission found that, during the examination of the labour case before the Labour Disputes Commission, the claimant was shown all the documents submitted by the defendant, including the internal investigation report, and had the opportunity to comment on it, to provide explanations, arguments and evidence, and to challenge the circumstances stated in it. The claimant’s right of defence, his right to be heard and the adversarial principle were therefore properly ensured.

In the Commission’s assessment, the defendant submitted sufficient evidence confirming that trust in the claimant had been lost not because of a one-off formal breach, but because of repeatedly identified professional breaches of a similar nature, despite the disciplinary measures, warnings and opportunities to continue working previously given.

The Commission took into account that the functions of a technical inspection controller performed by the claimant are related to increased professional responsibility, road safety and public trust in the mandatory technical inspection system, and therefore such duties carry exceptionally high requirements of care and professionalism.

Having assessed all of the evidence in the case, the Commission concluded that the defendant had a sufficient factual and legal basis to terminate the employment contract with the claimant under Article 58(2)(1) of the LC. The Commission held that, before taking its decision, the defendant followed the procedure laid down by law and assessed the criteria set out in Article 58(4) of the LC, and that the disciplinary measure applied, termination of the employment contract, corresponded to the nature and significance of the breach of work duties committed, the risks caused and the principle of proportionality.

In view of this, the Commission found that the claimant’s claim to have the termination of the employment contract declared unlawful is unfounded and is therefore to be dismissed. As the main claim for a declaration that the termination of the employment contract was unlawful has been dismissed, there is no legal basis for granting the claimant’s derivative claims for average pay for the period of forced absence and for compensation.

The Labour Disputes Commission, guided by Article 228 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania,

has decided:

To dismiss the application of the claimant [anonymised].

Under Article 231(1) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania, a party to a labour dispute who disagrees with the decision has the right, within one month of the date on which the Labour Disputes 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 decision of the Labour Disputes Commission is not subject to appeal or review.

Chairwoman of the Commission [anonymised]