When an employee agrees on a salary but receives less for several months and does not say anything to the employer, thinking that these are temporary difficulties or that the company is going through a difficult period, serious problems may arise later when a claim is made.
According to Viktorija Dubovskienė, an attorney at the law firm AVOCAD, recent court rulings send a very important and clear message: in employment relationships, silence may be interpreted as consent, while a unilateral decision to cease performing one’s duties may be considered a gross violation.
Lower pay: when does an employee's expectation become consent?
The case examined a situation where an employee had agreed on a specific salary, but the amounts actually paid were subsequently reduced. The employee claimed that this was an unpaid portion of his salary and that he therefore had the right to terminate the contract and claim the outstanding amount. The employer took the opposite view, arguing that the reduction in remuneration had been agreed and that the employee had not made any claims for a long time.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania emphasized a fundamental rule: if an employee believes that the terms of their employment contract have been changed unlawfully, they must take active steps. The law sets a time limit within which potentially violated rights can be challenged. If no dispute is initiated within this period, the employee is deemed to have agreed to work under the changed terms and conditions.
According to the lawyer, in this case, the employee could have noticed the reduction in remuneration when he received the first smaller payments. However, he continued to work, accepted his salary, and did not initiate a formal dispute for a long time. Only later, when the conflict escalated, was a significant amount claimed for the entire period. The court found that there was no basis for such an "accumulated" claim because the employee had not exercised his right to dispute the situation in a timely manner.
In discussing the latest ruling by the Supreme Court, Viktorija Dobovskienė points out that labor law protects employees, but it is also based on the principle of legal certainty. “If a person accepts a lower salary for months on end and does not react, the court may conclude that they have consented to this situation. Waiting in good faith can become a legal risk,” she warns.
Failure to report to work is a serious violation
An equally important part of the case concerns dismissal for absence from work. The employee, believing that his request to terminate the contract had already taken effect, did not go to work for almost two months. Meanwhile, the employer clearly stated that it did not agree with such termination and considered the employment contract to be valid.
The court assessed this behavior as a continuous and deliberate failure to perform duties. It was emphasized that if the basis for termination of an employment contract is disputed, an employee cannot unilaterally decide that they no longer need to perform their duties. Until there is legal clarity, the obligation to work remains.
“Prolonged absence from work without a valid reason was deemed a serious violation, and dismissal was considered a proportionate measure, particularly in light of the employer’s loss of trust. The court also noted that even if there is debate regarding certain procedural details, this does not in itself negate the fact that a serious violation may have been committed,” notes Viktorija Dubovskienė.
The AVOCAD lawyer also points out that if the employer clearly states that the contract is valid, the decision to simply not come to work is extremely risky. "In such a case, the safest course of action is to resolve the dispute through legal means, rather than arbitrarily terminating the performance of duties," says the lawyer.
According to her, this ruling highlights two clear rules. First, if you believe that your salary or other essential terms have been changed unlawfully, react immediately. In labor law, "later" often means "too late." Second, if there is a dispute over the termination of an employment contract, a unilateral decision to stop performing your duties can have serious consequences.
In labor relations, inaction also has a price. The court has once again demonstrated that it is not those who suffer in silence who prevail, but those who defend their rights in a timely and appropriate manner.