Immediate termination of employment

What is immediate termination of employment and why is it so exceptional

Act No. 262/2006 Coll., the Labour Code, clearly states that an employer may terminate an employment relationship only in exceptional cases, as it is the most serious way to end employment.

This instrument is surrounded by strict conditions and deadlines, and courts scrutinise it very rigorously. From the practice of the Prague-based ARROWS law firm, which deals with this issue daily, it is clear that a large proportion of immediate termination cases contain a legal defect leading to their invalidity.

The reason is simple: employers often underestimate the difficulty of proving a so-called "particularly gross breach of duties" and are not satisfied with giving notice, even though it would be a legally safer path.

When an employer can truly terminate an employment relationship immediately

The law is unequivocal here – an employer can immediately terminate an employment relationship only in the exhaustively listed cases under Section 55 of the Labour Code. This is not an open list where any reason could be applied. The list is closed and precisely defined by law.

Conviction of an employee for a criminal offence

The first case is clear: when an employee has been finally convicted of an intentional criminal offence. This must be a conviction to an unconditional prison sentence of more than one year, or an intentional criminal offence committed while performing work duties with a sentence of at least six months.

The key is the word "finally," meaning the court's decision must be definitive and without the possibility of an ordinary appeal.

The Czech legal team at ARROWS law firm has experience with cases involving employee convictions and knows which judgments need to be obtained and how to proceed correctly.

Particularly gross breach of work duties

The second and, in practice, most common reason is far more complex. It involves a situation where an employee has breached an obligation arising from legal regulations relating to their work in a "particularly gross manner" under Section 55(1)(b) of the Labour Code. This is where the greatest risk lies and where employers most often make mistakes.

In each individual case, the court must ask itself whether the breach is so serious that it would be unfair to require the employer to continue employing the employee.

Many employers do not realise that it is not as simple as it might seem. Practice distinguishes three levels of breach intensity: less serious, serious, and a particularly gross breach. Only the last level justifies immediate termination. If the employer only convinces the court that it was a serious breach, the immediate termination will be found invalid.

Typical examples of a particularly gross breach of work duties

The case law of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic features certain situations that courts consistently evaluate as a particularly gross breach. This is not an exhaustive list, but these are cases that employers can use as a guide.

Theft and attack on the employer's property

One of the clearest cases is an attack on the employer's property. The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic has repeatedly addressed this issue and concluded that an attack on the employer's property usually constitutes such a significant circumstance that it alone is sufficient to conclude a particularly gross breach.

The court has also dealt with cases of petty theft, where the value was in the order of tens of crowns, and still concluded that it could be a particularly gross breach of duties.

However, employers must realise that even if they themselves wish for the employment to end immediately, they will have to prove in court that the theft actually occurred. Without solid evidence, such as camera footage or witnesses, the employer may end up in a situation where the court rules that the immediate termination was not justified due to a lack of evidence.

Prolonged unexcused absence

Another classic example is a prolonged unexcused absence of an employee from work. Case law here is quite consistent, and as a rule, if an employee is absent without excuse for at least 5 working days, it can be considered a particularly gross breach.

There are also cases where the court has ruled that an unexcused absence of even less than five days can be grounds for immediate termination. However, this must be a situation where it caused significant damage to the employer or endangered operations.

Use of alcohol and addictive substances in the workplace

A third example is performing work under the influence of alcohol or other addictive substances. Here, however, the situation is tricky, as the court does not only consider the question of alcohol consumption but also examines the degree of impairment of the ability to work and the type of work performed. The employee's duties in this area are set out in Section 106(4)(e) of the Labour Code.

The employer must have evidence for their claim, such as the results of a breathalyser test performed with a calibrated device, or a medical blood test.

The lawyers at ARROWS law firm see that this is precisely where employers often go wrong, assuming that a positive breathalyser test automatically equals a valid immediate termination.

Physical assault in the workplace

The last example that occurs is a physical assault on a colleague or superior. Although it seems that physical violence is clearly intolerable, even here courts examine the context, for example, whether there was provocation.

If the incident was provoked or was an extraordinary deviation by an otherwise trouble-free employee, the court may conclude that the immediate termination was disproportionately harsh. Nevertheless, an attack on the health or life of others is generally perceived as one of the most serious offences.

If the employer does not provide a factually defined reason (e.g., only refers to a section of the law but does not specify what the employee did, when, and how), the immediate termination will be invalid due to a formal defect under Section 60 of the Labour Code. The reason must be described in such a way that it cannot be confused with another.

A very important one. If the employee has worked flawlessly so far and the incident is an isolated deviation, the courts may consider this a mitigating circumstance. Conversely, with an employee with a problematic history, the employer's position is stronger.

Formal requirements for immediate termination

The lawyers at ARROWS law firm point out that many immediate terminations do not stand up in court, not because of a lack of grounds, but due to formal errors.

Mandatory written form

The first and most basic requirement is that an immediate termination must always be in writing under Section 60 of the Labour Code. It cannot be done orally, nor via SMS or email without a recognised electronic signature.

Case law has established that the document delivered to the employee must bear the original handwritten signature of an authorised person. A mere photocopy of a signature or a scanned signature printed on the document renders the legal act null or invalid.

Factual definition of the reason

Another critical requirement is that the immediate termination must contain a factually defined reason. It is not enough to write a general phrase about a breach of duties; it is necessary to specify exactly what happened and when.

The reason must be described so specifically that it cannot be confused with another. It is also important that the reason cannot be subsequently changed under Section 60 of the Labour Code.

Proper delivery

The third critical point is delivery, as an immediate termination is effective only upon delivery to the other party. The methods of delivery are regulated by Section 334 et seq. of the Labour Code.

The safest method is personal delivery at the workplace, directly into the employee's hands, ideally in front of a witness. If this is not possible, other methods such as a data box or postal services for personal delivery are used.

Adherence to deadlines

The final formal requirement is the deadlines. An employer cannot immediately terminate an employment relationship at will. They have the right to do so only within a subjective period of two months from the day they learned of the reason, but no later than within an objective period of one year.

If the employer misses this deadline, the right to immediately terminate the employment relationship expires. It is important to realise that the two-month period passes very quickly and can easily be missed through delay.

Personal delivery into the employee's hands at the workplace. The employee confirms receipt with a signature. If they refuse to accept it, a witness records this fact, and the effects of delivery occur nonetheless. The right to immediate termination expires. The employer can no longer use this instrument for the act in question.

Prohibitions on immediate termination

The law also contains so-called protected periods, which are situations where an employer may not immediately terminate an employment relationship regardless of the severity of the breach. An employer may not take this step with a pregnant employee, an employee on maternity leave, or an employee on parental leave.

For protected categories of employees, even giving notice for a breach of duties is not an option, so the employer is significantly restricted in this situation.

Employers often do not realise this and attempt to dismiss pregnant employees immediately. If this happens, a court will rule that the termination was invalid, and the employer must pay the employee wage compensation.

When an employee wants to immediately terminate the employment relationship

An employee also has the right to immediately terminate the employment relationship, in two specific cases defined by Section 56 of the Labour Code.

Serious threat to the employee's health

The first case occurs when, according to a medical report, an employee cannot continue to perform their current work without a serious threat to their health. If the employer does not enable them to perform other suitable work within 15 days, the employee may terminate immediately.

This must be a formal report from an occupational health service provider with a clear conclusion of unfitness. In such a case, the employee is entitled to wage compensation in the amount of their average earnings for a period corresponding to the notice period.

Unpaid wages

The second case is more common, where the employer has not paid wages or a part thereof within 15 days after the end of the pay period. Wages are payable no later than in the calendar month following the month in which the right to the wage arose.

If the employer does not pay the wage even within 15 days after the due date, the employee can immediately terminate the employment relationship. In this case, too, the employee is entitled to wage compensation for a period corresponding to the length of the notice period.

Deadlines for employees

The employee must also act quickly. They can immediately terminate the employment relationship only within a period of two months from the day they learned of the reason, but no later than one year from the day the reason arose (Section 59 of the Labour Code).

Consequences of an invalid immediate termination

If a court rules that an immediate termination given by an employer was invalid, the consequences for the company are financially demanding. This is regulated by Section 69 et seq. of the Labour Code.

The employee's right to employment is restored

If the employee has announced that they insist on continued employment and the court rules the termination invalid, the employment relationship continues. The employer is obliged to assign work to the employee.

Wage compensation

The employee is entitled to wage compensation in the amount of their average earnings for the entire period during which they were not assigned work. This period lasts from the invalid termination until the time the employer allows them to continue working, or until the court's decision.

Although the court has the discretion to reasonably reduce compensation for the period exceeding 6 months, this cannot be automatically relied upon. Interest on late payments and the costs of the court proceedings are often added to the principal amounts.

Procedure for the employee

If an employee receives an immediate termination that they consider invalid, they must act proactively. Passivity in this case means accepting the termination of the employment relationship.

Written notification of insistence on continued employment

The employee must, without undue delay, notify the employer in writing that they consider the termination invalid and insist that the employer continue to employ them. This step opens the way to a claim for wage compensation under Section 69 of the Labour Code.

Filing a lawsuit within the two-month period

The employee must file a lawsuit with the court to determine the invalidity of the termination of employment. Note that this is a two-month forfeiture (preclusive) period from the day the employment was supposed to end.

Executive summary for management

Immediate termination is a last resort – use it only in clear cases (conviction, flagrant theft, assault). For more debatable cases, termination by notice is safer.

Beware of formal errors – a missing signature, a vague description of the act, or delivery by regular mail renders the action invalid.

Pregnant employees and parents are protected – you cannot issue them an immediate termination.

Deadlines are unforgiving – as an employer, you have 2 months to react from the moment you learn of the misconduct.

The costs of invalidity are high – a lost dispute means paying back wages for months or even years when the employee did not work.

Conclusion of the article

Immediate termination of employment seems like a quick solution to a problem, but in practice, it is the legally riskiest way to end a working relationship. The law binds it with strict conditions, and courts often side with the weaker party.

The Czech legal team at ARROWS law firm deals with these situations daily; we see where employers go wrong, and we know how to avoid these mistakes.

If you are considering this step, we recommend a consultation, as prevention is always cheaper than a court dispute. Do not hesitate to contact us at consultation@arws.cz, and we will help you assess the strength of your evidence and correctly formulate the documents.