Misconduct proven, dismissal void: union rep keeps full year's pay

Lithuania's Supreme Administrative Court has refused to cut a full year's forced-absence pay awarded to a trade-union committee memberTeismai whom the Employment Service dismissed for proven gross misconductTeismai without first obtaining the required consentsTeismai. In final ruling No. eA-2766-575/2026 of 30 September 2026TeismaiTeismai, the court dismissed the employer's appealTeismai and left unchanged the judgment annulling the dismissalTeismai and awarding one year's average wage plus one month's average wage.

The dismissal order of 15 July 2025 removed career civil servant S. G.Teismai, a committee member of the Service's trade unionTeismai, for gross misconduct: entering false data about client D. P.'s visits, altering visit times and service methods, deleting the record of a job offer issued to him, and backdating registration and visit data of client S. K. in the "EdBirža" information system. The first-instance court endorsed those misconduct findings as reasoned and well-founded. But the Service had dismissed an elected employee representative without the prior union consent required by the National Collective AgreementTeismai and without the consent of the State Labour Inspectorate (VDI) territorial branch head required by Article 168(3) of the Labour Code (DK)Teismai. The court treated both consents as mandatoryTeismai and their absence as an essential breach of the representative's guaranteesTeismai, annulling the whole dismissal orderTeismai. Because S. G. asked not to be reinstatedTeismai, the court applied DK 218(4) and (6)Teismai: average wage for forced absence of 84.94 EUR per working day from 19 July 2025 to 19 July 2026Teismai, less any unused-leave compensation already paid, plus a one-month average-wage compensation. It rejected the 1,000 EUR non-pecuniary-damage claim.

On appeal the Service challenged only the amountTeismai, seeking six months instead of twelveTeismai: the one-year period is a ceiling, it argued, and a full award for a merely procedural breach where gross misconduct was proven, tenure was about three years and the employer is a budget-funded institution is disproportionate. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected every limb.Teismai Awarding the statutory one-year amount is the rule and reducing it the exceptionTeismai: reduction needs concrete, individual circumstances showing the award plainly misses its compensatory purpose or would cause the employer serious harmTeismai, and the employer proved noneTeismai, submitting no budget or wage-fund figures and no shown impact on its functions or other staff guarantees. The misconduct finding alone does not justify a cutTeismai, since forced-absence pay compensates income lost through an unlawful dismissalTeismai, and the employer could have dismissed lawfully by seeking VDI consent firstTeismai. Budgetary status alone changes nothingTeismai: the public interest also requires public bodies to obey mandatory labour-law guaranteesTeismai, and rational use of budget funds starts with lawful decisions rather than shifting the cost of unlawful ones onto the dismissed workerTeismai. VDI consent is no formality but a substantive independent check of whether the dismissal is connected with representational activity or discriminates on union membershipTeismai, which the employer cannot waive by judging that question itselfTeismai.

For practitioners the consequences are direct: dismissing an employee representative without both consents voids the dismissal even when the misconduct case is solidTeismai, and the resulting forced-absence bill runs at the full statutory level unless the employer proves exceptional circumstances with figuresTeismai. The court also confirmed the reduction plea was no new claim barred by ABTĮ 134(6)Teismai, since disputing the amount is part of applying DK 218(4)Teismai. The Service must additionally pay S. G. 600 EUR in appeal costs.

Legal basis: DK 168(3) and 218(4) and (6), the National Collective Agreement provision on prior union consent, and ABTĮ 134(6), 140 and 144(1)(1).Teismai