An employer that withholds more than one average monthly wage from a departing employee's final pay must take the excess through the labour-disputes procedure
Teismai — even if the employee signed a consent to the deductionTeismai. The Vilnius Regional Court confirmed this on 22 September 2026Teismai, leaving intact a ruling that ordered haulier UAB Jekaterinos Baltijos transportas to repay a truck driverTeismaiTeismai.
The driver, an international freight driver hired in January 2024 on a 1,386 Eur monthly wageTeismai, left on 7 February 2025. In the final settlement the employer deducted 2,691.40 EurTeismai for alleged damage to the tractor and trailerTeismai, recording the amounts as advances in the payslips: the January payslip showed 7.17 Eur payable and the February one 0 Eur. The employer relied on a notice the driver had signed on 7 January 2025 consenting to the deductionTeismai, arguing that voluntary consent removes the one-month-average-wage capTeismai in Article 156(1) of the Darbo kodeksasTeismai.
The court disagreed. Article 156(1) allows deduction by written employer order only for damage not voluntarily compensated and not exceeding one average monthly wageTeismai; anything above that must go through the labour-disputes body under Article 156(2)Teismai. Consent confirms willingness to compensate, the court heldTeismai, but it does not waive the size limit or the procedureTeismai — otherwise consent would let the cap be circumvented. Article 150(1)–(2) likewise permits deductions only in cases the statutes list.
The consent itself was unreliable. The assessment the 2,691.40 Eur figure rested onTeismai was carried out only laterTeismai — the vehicle expertise report dates from 7 February 2025Teismai — and the consent's stated assessment date was hand-corrected in the Lithuanian text from 2 July 2025 to 2 January 2025Teismai, while the Russian text kept 2 July 2025Teismai and the Italian text gave 7 February 2025Teismai. Consent has legal effect only if the employee can assess whether the demand is justified, including the amountTeismai; signed before any objective basis for the figure existedTeismai, it proved neither the damage nor the deductionTeismai.
Practical impossibility of later recovery was no excuse either. The employer argued the driver, a Belarusian citizenTeismai, could not realistically be pursued once paid out, given the absence of legal cooperationTeismai. The court held that foreseeable enforcement difficulty does not suspend the duty to settle in full on termination under Article 146(2)Teismai: the employer hired knowing the citizenshipTeismai and assumed that riskTeismai.
The employer challenged only the deductionTeismai, so the first-instance awards stand unexamined: 3,728 Eur net in unlawfully withheld wagesTeismai, 2,895.98 Eur before tax for unused annual leaveTeismai, and a one-month-average-wage penalty of 2,793.15 Eur for late settlementTeismai, plus 1,000 Eur in appellate costs to the driverTeismai. Legal basis: Ruling No e2A-2346-925/2026 of 22 September 2026 of the Vilniaus apygardos teismasTeismai, applying Articles 146(2), 147(2), 150 and 156 of the Darbo kodeksas.
Recover damage above one average monthly wage through the labour-disputes body; never net it from final pay on consent alone.
