Labor law training when a new employee starts work: What to look out for

Mgr. Jan Pavlík
Mgr. Jan Pavlík
4.5.2026 | ARROWS law firm

Training a new employee is not a formality, but an obligation imposed on employers by the Labour Code. Failure to comply may lead to fines, claims for damages, and even liability for company management. Many employers mistakenly rely on a signed occupational health and safety form or a short presentation. Proper training, however, must be specific, demonstrable, and reflect the employee’s actual work. That is why ARROWS law firm has prepared this practical overview to help companies set up employee training correctly.

In the image, we see a lawyer consulting on the legal framework and the employer’s obligations.

Legal framework and the employer’s obligations

The obligation to ensure that an employee is familiarised with legal regulations follows directly from Section 103, Section 306 and Section 37 of the Labour Code (Act No. 262/2006 Coll., as amended and effective as of 2026). This obligation applies to all persons performing work for the employer, i.e., employees in an employment relationship, as well as persons working under an Agreement to Perform Work (DPP) and an Agreement on Work Activity (DPČ), albeit to a different extent. In particular, occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations apply to all natural persons who, with the employer’s knowledge, are present at the employer’s workplaces.

These obligations have two functional levels. The first level is informational – the employee must know what their rights and obligations are, what the employer prescribes through work rules and internal policies, and what their specific working conditions are.

The second level is safety-related – the employee must be familiarised with the risks of their work, the legal regulations for managing those risks, and what protective equipment and measures the employer has put in place. In practice, these levels often overlap, but distinguishing them is legally relevant.

No later than before commencing work, the employee must, under Section 37(1)(f) and (g) and Section 103(2) of the Labour Code, be familiarised with the work rules applicable at the employer and other internal regulations relevant to them; with legal and other regulations ensuring occupational health and safety (OHS) that relate to their specific work and associated risks; and with the collective agreement, if any.

On its face, this sounds simple. If you want to be sure that your training setup and internal rules will stand up even during an inspection or a dispute, it is advisable to consult specific procedures within employment law under Czech legislation. In practice, however, it often happens that the familiarisation process is chaotic, unstructured, without verification of understanding, and without any link to the specific job position.

Courts and the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, encounter cases where, after an accident, an employee argued that they had no idea about the risks of their work, even though they had been “trained”. If such training is proven to have been merely formal, the court often does not recognise it as sufficient. Where a workplace accident or inspection escalates into a dispute over compliance and evidence, employers typically need support in Commercial Litigation & Arbitration in the Czech Republic. The risks of “formal” training in practice are also linked to the issue of terminating employment relationships, which is summarised in the article How to terminate employment during the probationary period without the risk of a court dispute.

What exactly the employer must ensure

The familiarisation must relate specifically to the work the employee will perform. It is therefore not possible to use universal materials for all employees and consider the obligation fulfilled. If an employee is starting in an operation with machinery, familiarising them with general risks is not sufficient – they must be informed how those risks relate to their specific machine, their specific workplace, and their specific position.

In practical terms, this means that the list of the employer’s obligations includes the following points.

Preparation of materials: the employer must ensure work rules, safety instructions, position-specific guidance, an overview of risks and protective measures; where applicable, also internal company regulations or manuals.

Conducting the training: it may be conducted by a line manager, an OHS specialist, or an external trainer; it should not be merely the distribution of written materials, but an active process in which the employer verifies that the employee understands.

Verification of understanding: this includes obtaining confirmation from the employee that they understood, typically by signing a training form or the training log. Important note: if a court later finds that it was a merely formal act, this confirmation may not be sufficient.

Documentation: the employer must retain evidence that the training took place (e.g., list of participants, training materials, signatures, training dates, records of verification of understanding).

Keeping it up to date: if the workplace, technology, or procedures change, the training must be updated or supplemented; likewise if the employee transfers to different work within the same company.

In practice, the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, encounter the view of some employers that “training” is sufficient if the employee signs a piece of paper. When setting internal policies and delegations of responsibility for onboarding and OHS, companies often address this as part of their broader Corporate & Holding services in the Czech Republic. Case law and labour inspectors have long refuted this approach; in the event of a dispute or investigation, the employer is required to prove that the familiarisation was truly adequate and specific.

Deadlines and their critical importance

The deadline “no later than before commencing work” does not mean that the employer may split the training at any time during the first working day. The law expressly states that the employee must already be trained for the activity they perform.

If, therefore, the employee enters an operation with hazards on Monday morning, they must not be allowed to work with the machine until they have been properly trained and understand the risks. Training can be supplemented gradually as the employee learns new tasks, but information about risks and safety measures for the activity currently being performed must be completely clear in advance. For arrangements where work is performed outside the employer’s workplace, it is also advisable to set up records and controls in line with the recommendations in the text Recording working time when working from home: What employers need to watch out for.

This has an important practical consequence: if the company lacks capacity for training, or the trainer is not available, the employer cannot simply send the new employee into operations. In Czech legal practice, this constitutes a breach of duty and a source of liability.

Occupational health and safety (OHS) topics are not covered within the familiarisation process by approving a single form. This is a procedural activity that takes place on an ongoing basis and must be regularly updated.

Under Section 103(3)(d) of the Czech Labour Code, the employer must ensure that employees undergo training on legal and other regulations ensuring occupational health and safety (OHS) that relate to the work they perform and the associated risks, on a regular and repeated basis. The scope and frequency of the training are determined by the employer, taking into account the risks and changing conditions.

Common practice, also accepted by the Labour Inspectorate, is to repeat general OHS training once every two years; however, specific training for hazardous activities or machine operation may require shorter intervals or training whenever there is a change in technology or work procedure.

OHS training content

The content of the training is not precisely prescribed by law. The law assumes that each workplace involves different risks and each profession has different requirements. The legal framework requires the employer to identify risks within the company and then set the training accordingly.

In practice, this means that for an administrative department, the training content will focus on ergonomics, safe work at a computer, procedures in the event of an incident, and similar topics.

For a workshop with engineering machinery, the training will include specific instructions for individual machines, management of PPE (personal protective equipment), emergency procedures, and internal company procedures. 

The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, advise their clients to prepare proven materials and procedures based on a risk assessment, which can then be used on a standardised basis, while allowing for individual adaptation for specific employees.

The training content should also take into account specific groups of employees. Juvenile employees (under 18) are subject to a special regime and require more intensive support. Employees who do not have Czech as their native language must receive instructions in a language they understand, or with an interpreter. Employees with disabilities may require an adapted form of training.

Forms of OHS training

Training can be delivered in several forms. Traditionally, in-person training is still common – group training in the company’s meeting room with a trainer or manager.

In recent years, e-learning has been expanding, enabling flexible completion and good documentation. However, caution is required: courts and the Labour Inspectorate consider whether e-learning allows adequate interaction and verification of understanding. Mere registration for a course and clicking through without relevant feedback could be problematic.

A blended format (in-person + e-learning) has proven effective in practice. For example: an employee completes an e-learning course with testing, then attends a group workshop to practise specific situations from their work, and finally has their practical skills verified under a manager’s supervision.

Importantly, the trainer or the person ensuring the training must have sufficient competence – be familiar with the regulations, understand the risks of the given workplace, and have communication skills. Not every manager is an optimal trainer.

Pre-employment medical examinations – changes from 2025

An important change took effect from 1 June 2025 and subsequently from 30 September 2025. This is one of those areas where the attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, recommend special attention, as these are relatively new rules that many companies have not yet implemented correctly.

The key legislation is Act No. 373/2011 Coll., on Specific Health Services, and the implementing Decree No. 79/2013 Coll., on Occupational Medical Services and Certain Types of Medical Assessment Care.

New rule for category 1 – abolition of mandatory examinations for adult employees

As of 1 June 2025, the obligation to undergo a pre-employment medical examination was abolished for adult employees working in category 1 jobs (low risks, no special health requirements). Category 1 typically includes administrative work, light manual work, sales, and similar activities.

In practical terms: if, for example, you hire a new accountant for the administrative department, you no longer have to arrange a pre-employment medical examination as you were previously required to do. The financial savings and reduced administrative burden are clear.

However, this includes one important condition: the abolition applies only to adult employees (18+). If the employer or the job applicant requests an examination, it may be carried out, but it is not mandatory.

Rules for juveniles and higher risk categories

The regime for juvenile employees remains unchanged – juvenile employees (under 18) must always undergo a pre-employment medical examination, regardless of the job category and regardless of whether they work under an employment contract, an agreement to perform work (DPP) or an agreement on work activity (DPČ).

The examination for juveniles must be carried out by a provider of occupational medical services (OMS). The provision allowing the use of a registered general practitioner for certain periodic examinations does not apply to juveniles’ pre-employment examinations.

For adults working under agreements (DPP/DPČ) in non-risk category 2 (i.e., without health risk factors), a pre-employment examination will no longer be required as of 30 September 2025. If these individuals are in an employment relationship, the pre-employment examination remains mandatory.

For all higher risk categories (category 2 risk and categories 3 and 4), the pre-employment medical examination remains mandatory regardless of the employee’s age or the type of employment relationship.

Table of changes as of 1 January 2026:

Type of applicant/work

Before 1 June 2025

From 1 June 2025 (adults cat. 1)

From 30 September 2025 (adults cat. 2 non-risk DPP/DPČ)

Adult, category 1, employment relationship

Mandatory

Not mandatory*

Not mandatory*

Adult, category 1, DPP/DPČ

Mandatory

Not mandatory*

Not mandatory*

Adult, category 2 non-risk, employment relationship

Mandatory

Mandatory

Mandatory

Adult, category 2 non-risk, DPP/DPČ

Mandatory

Mandatory

Not mandatory*

Adult, category 2 risk and higher, any type of relationship

Mandatory

Mandatory

Mandatory

Juvenile, any category, any type of relationship

Mandatory

Mandatory

Mandatory

* may be carried out voluntarily at the request of the applicant/employer

The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, point out the practical implications: many companies have not noticed this change and still spend money on examinations that are no longer mandatory, or conversely, sometimes were not aware at all that the rules have changed. This can then lead to incorrect documentation or a mismatch between reality and the company’s internal processes.

Who pays for the examination

If an entry medical examination is mandatory, the costs are borne by the future employer. If a job applicant undergoes the examination at their own request before the employment relationship is concluded, the applicant bears the costs themselves.

If the employment relationship (or agreement) is subsequently concluded, the employer is obliged to pay for the examination or reimburse the applicant. Important: the Labour Code and the regulations on specific health services do not set an exact deadline within which the employer must reimburse the examination.

In practice, it sometimes happens that the employer reimburses only later—or not at all—and the applicant then enforces their claims. The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, recommend a clear internal process and prompt settlement of costs to avoid disputes.

Most common questions about employee training
  1. Can training take place during work, or must it be outside working hours?
    Training that is ordered or required by the employer is considered the performance of work. For this reason, it takes place during working hours and the employee is entitled to paid time for it. If the training were held outside normal working hours, it would constitute overtime work, which entails additional legal consequences (e.g., overtime premiums). The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, note that if an employee happens to work overtime on the same day, the training time is deducted from their working time.
  2. What happens if an employee refuses training?
    Participation in mandatory training (especially occupational health and safety) is part of the employee’s work duties. If the employee refuses, the employer must call on them to remedy the situation and, where appropriate, set an alternative date. If the employee refuses again or shows no effort to fulfil the obligation, this constitutes a breach of work duties (formerly “breach of work discipline”), and the employer may consider disciplinary action, including termination in serious cases. Where the employee could not work safely without the training, the employer cannot assign them to work.
  3. What exactly must the training content include?
    The law does not prescribe any specific content for occupational health and safety training. The content is driven by the risks of the specific workplace and the specific work performed by the employee, as identified in the risk assessment. However, the Labour Inspectorate and the courts require the content to be consistent, to relate to the specific work, and to be demonstrable by the employer. The attorneys of ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, recommend at a minimum: an overview of the risks of the given position and workplace, familiarisation with personal protective equipment (PPE), procedures for emergency situations, contact details for the person responsible for occupational health and safety, and relevant internal safety regulations.
  4. Is it enough for an employee to sign that they completed the training, even if it taught them nothing?
    Case law clearly says no. A signature is only a documentation element, not proof of actual understanding. If a dispute arises (for example after an accident), the court will require evidence that the employee truly understood and was able to apply the acquired knowledge. Properly conducted training should therefore include some form of verification—testing, discussion, practical exercises, or a demonstration.
  5. Who is responsible for training—HR or the employee’s manager? Responsibility for ensuring proper training lies with the employer as a legal entity. In practice, however, training is usually delivered in a combination—HR provides basic familiarisation with workplace rules and internal policies, while the manager introduces the specifics of their area and the particular risks at the specific workplace. Both must cooperate and be clear on who is responsible for what, based on clearly defined internal processes.

Practical risks and sanctions for non-compliance

When an employer fails in its duty to provide proper training, it faces various types of negative consequences that cannot simply be ignored.

Sanctions and fines imposed by the Labour Inspectorate

Act No. 251/2005 Coll., on Labour Inspection, as effective in 2026, defines offences and administrative violations in the area of occupational safety. If the Labour Inspectorate finds that the employer did not ensure proper training of an employee on legal and other occupational health and safety regulations, it may impose a fine.

An individual (a self-employed natural person) may be fined up to CZK 2,000,000. A legal entity may be fined up to CZK 10,000,000 for failure to comply with obligations laid down by legal regulations to ensure occupational health and safety.

The Labour Inspectorate carries out routine inspections, and recently the intensity of inspections has also increased in the area of the correctness of training and compliance with occupational health and safety regulations.

Civil liability for damages

If an employee suffers an accident or health harm as a result of insufficient or missing training, the employee (or their survivors) has a claim against the employer for compensation for damages under Section 265 et seq. of the Labour Code. Legally, this is one of the most serious risks, because it is not a state sanction, but a private claim that the employee asserts against the employer in court.

The court will assess whether, if the employee had been properly trained, the accident would not have occurred or its consequences would have been at least mitigated. This assessment is often in the employee’s favour, especially where proper prevention was lacking.

Criminal liability of company management

In extreme cases where a serious injury or death of an employee occurs due to a serious breach of occupational health and safety duties (including insufficient training), a managerial employee (e.g., an executive director, a board member, an owner) may be criminally liable under the Criminal Code (Act No. 40/2009 Coll.).

This may involve offences such as negligent bodily harm (Section 147 of the Criminal Code), negligent grievous bodily harm (Section 148 of the Criminal Code), or negligent homicide (Section 150 of the Criminal Code). Criminal liability is a very serious matter, with the possibility of imprisonment for up to several years depending on the specific circumstances and consequences.

It is also necessary to take into account the criminal liability of legal entities (Act No. 418/2011 Coll.), under which a fine, dissolution of the legal entity, or a ban on activity may be imposed.

Potential issues and how ARROWS can help

Potential issues

How ARROWS helps (office@arws.cz)

Fine from the Labour Inspectorate for insufficient training

ARROWS attorneys will help you prepare a defence against the Labour Inspectorate, analyse the evidence, and, if necessary, we will represent you in appeal proceedings or before the administrative court.

An employee’s civil claim for damages after a workplace injury

We will ensure your defence in court proceedings, argue that the training was adequate, and, where appropriate, negotiate a settlement on the best possible terms for the company.

Inconsistent employee training and the risk of non-standard procedures

We will prepare a unified, legally verified training programme specifically for your company, including materials and procedural steps that can be used repeatedly.

Unclear allocation of responsibility between HR and line managers

We will set up your internal processes and documentation so that each party’s responsibility is clearly visible and there is no doubt about who is responsible for what.

Legislative changes (especially changes to medical examinations) and uncertainty in application

We will regularly inform you about changes and help you interpret the new rules so that your training and medical procedures always remain compliant with Czech law.
Most common questions on employee training in business practice
  1. Am I at risk of a fine if I have not carried out the mandatory OHS training for all employees this year? If the Labour Inspectorate has not yet carried out an inspection and has not identified non-compliance, an immediate fine may not be imminent. However, the obligation still applies and should be fulfilled without delay. The most prudent approach is to conduct the training as soon as possible and ensure its regularity going forward. ARROWS attorneys will help you analyse the situation and, if necessary, prepare a defence should the Labour Inspectorate in the future conclude that the training was inadequate or delayed.
  1. How much does it cost to prepare a company for proper training?
    Costs vary depending on the size of the company, the number of employees, the type of work performed, and the complexity of the related risks. A typical process audit, preparation of documents, and training materials with ARROWS attorneys is in the tens of thousands of Czech crowns, which is usually negligible compared to the risk of high fines or costly litigation.
  2. Can I provide the training online?
    Yes, e-learning is a lawful form of training. However, it is important that the course includes ways to verify understanding (e.g., interactive questions, tests with a sufficient pass threshold), that the employee can interact, and that the content is tailored to the specific company and role. A purely “click-through” e-learning course that an employee merely “logs into” without active involvement and knowledge verification is usually not legally sufficient. In practice, a combination of online materials and an in-person workshop with practical exercises works best.
  3. What if an employee says they did not understand the training in Czech?
    If the employee is not a native Czech speaker or has language barriers, the employer must deliver the training in a way the employee can understand—either in their native language, with an interpreter, or with materials translated into a language they understand. If the employer neglects this obligation, the training is not legally valid and the employer may face liability for insufficient training.
  4. What are the most common mistakes companies make? These include: (a) the belief that a signature on paper solves everything; (b) failing to take into account the employee’s individual needs (age, language, special qualifications); (c) failing to update training when work procedures, technologies, or legislation change; (d) lack of practical demonstration or practice for high-risk activities; (e) lack of records of what was trained and when; (f) lack of checks of understanding and the ability to apply the acquired knowledge.

Conclusion

Employee onboarding training may not seem complicated at first glance, but the legal reality is far more nuanced. It is a set of obligations that the employer must fulfil systematically, with proper documentation and in a role-specific manner. 

It is not merely about introducing the employee to “safety rules” on paper, but about ensuring that the employee truly understands the risks of their work and knows how to deal with them.

As legal requirements have changed in recent years (in particular the rules on pre-employment medical examinations effective from 1 June 2025 and 30 September 2025), many companies are still adapting. 

At the same time, the Labour Inspectorate is increasing the intensity of inspections, and case law is consistent that mere formality is not sufficient. This means that investing in properly set training processes is absolutely worthwhile—both in terms of protecting employees and ensuring the company’s legal certainty.

If you do not want to risk multi-million fines, adverse civil litigation, or criminal liability of management, you should continuously review your training system no later than now with the support of attorneys from ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm. 

If needed, we will set up a training programme for you, prepare unified materials and processes, and if an issue arises, we are ready to defend you. Contact us at office@arws.cz so that together we can ensure your training is legally compliant.

Most common questions on employment law training when onboarding a new employee
  1. When exactly must an employee be trained – before starting work, or can the training take place on the first day? The training must take place no later than before the commencement of work performance (Section 36(1) of the Labour Code). This means that if an employee starts on Monday morning at eight o’clock, they must be familiarised with the relevant regulations and instructions relating to their work and workplace by 8:00. They cannot be sent straight to work with the understanding that they will be trained later. If you want to avoid confusion and ensure everything is ready, it is better to complete the training during the first working day, ideally before the work they are to perform begins. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you set up a procedural timeline so that everything runs smoothly.
  2. What are the latest changes to the rules on medical examinations that every company should know? As of 1 June 2025, an entry medical examination is no longer mandatory for adult employees in category 1 (low-risk work). As of 30 September 2025, this rule also applies to adults working under agreements to perform work (DPP) and agreements on work activity (DPČ) in non-risk category 2. However, juvenile employees (under 18) must always undergo an examination, regardless of the type of work or employment relationship. This change means that if, for example, you hire an accountant, a receptionist, or a sales assistant, you no longer need to arrange medical examinations. By contrast, if you hire a juvenile worker or someone in higher risk categories (risk category 2, 3 and 4), the obligation to arrange an entry examination remains. If you are unsure about the classification of your work, ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you with classification by risk category.
  3. What exactly must I have documented for my training records to be legally acceptable? You should have: (1) a list of training participants with dates and signatures; (2) detailed training content (training materials, syllabus); (3) records of verification of understanding (e.g., test results, written verification); (4) the names and qualifications of the persons who delivered the training; (5) the duration of the training; (6) the training date. It is important that the documentation demonstrates that the training was specific to the given job and risks and that the employee actually understood. This documentation must be retained and available to the labour inspectorate. If the inspectorate carries out an inspection and the documentation is missing or incomplete, it will be assessed as a failure to fulfil the obligation. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you prepare forms and processes so that the documentation is consistent and properly maintained.
  4. Do I also have to arrange training for external contractors, temporary workers, and workers engaged under agreements? Yes, the obligation to ensure occupational health and safety applies to all natural persons who, with the employer’s knowledge, are present at its workplaces and perform work for it, including external contractors, temporary workers, and persons working under agreements to perform work (DPP) or agreements on work activity (DPČ). The scope of OHS training must be based on the specific work and risks to which these persons are exposed. Training on internal work rules in full scope usually applies only to employees in an employment relationship, but basic rules of conduct and safety instructions must be known by everyone who operates at the workplace. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you prepare such a template and optimise processes so that the training is effective and meets statutory requirements for all categories of workers.
  5. Can an employer conduct training online and still be compliant?Online training is a lawful form provided it meets certain conditions: it must include demonstrable verification of understanding (tests, interaction), the content must relate specifically to the employee’s work and not be just a general course, and the employer must be able to prove that the employee actually completed the training and understood it. It is not sufficient for an employee merely to “log in” and do nothing. A combination of online material and a group workshop or practical training has proven best in practice. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you select and set up a suitable format for your company.
  1. What happens if an employee says they did not attend the training or that it taught them nothing? If such a conflict arises and the employee is later injured, their argument may be taken into account in court proceedings. The court will examine whether the training was indeed sufficient, whether the employer fulfilled all its obligations, and whether the employee truly understood the risks. This again confirms the importance of high-quality documentation and demonstrable verification of understanding. The best prevention is for the employee to actively participate during the training, for their understanding to be verified, and for them to explicitly confirm it. ARROWS attorneys in Prague can help you prepare processes that prevent such disputes.

Notice: The information contained in this article is of a general informational nature only and serves for basic orientation in the matter according to the legal status as of 2026. Although we take utmost care to ensure maximum accuracy of the content, legal regulations and their interpretation evolve over time. We are ARROWS, a Prague-based law firm, an entity registered with the Czech Bar Association (our supervisory authority), and for maximum client security we are insured for professional liability with a limit of CZK 400,000,000. To verify the current wording of regulations and their application to your specific situation, it is necessary to contact ARROWS directly (office@arws.cz). We accept no liability for any damages arising from the independent use of the information from this article without prior individual legal consultation.

Read also: