Driver's same-day exit was voluntary; per diem arrears stand

UAB "Dage Capital" hired ATS1 as a driver-forwarder under employment contract Nr. 076 of 25 June 2024, working from 1 July 2024 on missions abroad. On 9 September 2025 he signed a Russian-language form reading "Prašau atleisti mane nuo 09.09.2025 iš darbo šalių susitarimu"Teismai and the employer ended the contract under DK 55(1)Teismai, termination on employee initiative without important reasons. The district court treated the paper as a DK 54 proposalTeismai, found no conditions or negotiation, declared the dismissal unlawfulTeismai, requalified it to DK 54Teismai without reinstatement, and ordered forced-absence pay plus the per diem, penalty and costsTeismai.

The Klaipėda Regional Court, by Sprendimas Nr. e2A-1658-513/2026 of 12 November 2026, partly allowed the employer's appealTeismai: the dismissal stands as a lawful DK 55 termination from 9 September 2025Teismai and the forced-absence award falls awayTeismai, while the per diem and penalty awards standTeismai. A DK 54 agreement requires a written proposal with termination conditionsTeismai and a written acceptance, with silence for five working days counting as rejection. This paper stated only a same-day exit date and no conditionsTeismai, and an employee demanding immediate release objectively leaves no room for negotiation. The Russian wording can equally be read as consent to the fact of release rather than a DK 54 bargainTeismai, and conduct confirmed the DK 55 reading: the driver had effectively stopped working after mid-July, refused a mission on 25 July 2025, took August leave to decide, initiated the exit communication on 8 September and never revoked the statement. An employee demanding same-day release cannot expect DK 54 talks, and proving the statement did not reflect his true will was on the employeeTeismai.

The 7,894.47 Eur per diem debt standsTeismai. Trip sheets showed at least 11,760 Eur dueTeismai, while only 3,865.53 Eur of 19,936.01 Eur received was attributable to per diemsTeismai, the rest being salary and leave compensation. The contractual 75 percent rate could not reduce the statutory amount: a lower rate differentiated by objective criteria must sit in a collective agreement or, absent one, a local or internal-administration act disclosed to employees in writing, and the 2 March 2023 pay system was shown to no employeeTeismai and no payslips, mission orders, advance reports or per diem statements were ever givenTeismai. The three-month employment-dispute limit runs from when the worker knew or should have known of the specific breachTeismai, and without any statements the driver could only quantify the shortfall after termination with legal help and the employer's Labour Disputes Commission filings.

Final settlement was lateTeismai. The termination order itself directed settlement under the procedure then in DK 146(2)Teismai: on the last day, 9 September 2025, absent an agreement for payment within ten working daysTeismai, and no such agreement was provedTeismai. Partial payments on 27, 29 and 31 October 2025 still left the full 7,894 Eur per diem debt unpaidTeismai. Because that debt exceeds one month's average payTeismai of 1,533.63 EurTeismai, at a daily rate of 73.03 Eur, and the delay exceeds six monthsTeismai through no fault of the employeeTeismai, the imperative penalty of DK 147(2) applies at one month's average pay per month of delay up to six monthsTeismai: 9,201.78 EurTeismai. Financial hardship does not excuse late settlement. Each side succeeded on half of the dispute, so first-instance and appellate costs were split accordingly. Legal basis: Darbo kodeksas 54, 55, 146(2), 147(2) and 218; Civilinio proceso kodeksas 326–331.