Czech Republic: Termination of Employment Due to Gross Breach of Duties

Author: Klára Sleglova

The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic delivered a judgement on 3 March 2025 (Case No. 21 Cdo 816/2024) that contributed to the topic of assessing the level of intensity of an employee’s breach of duties. The case concerned a well-regarded employee who missed a shift despite being denied leave, raising significant questions about what constitutes a justifiable reason for termination — issues not always clearly resolved just through broadly formulated statutory provisions.

 

Overview of the Case

The employee worked for the employer as a gas station attendant. One time, she failed to show up for her shift after her request for leave to help her daughter with moving abroad had not been approved despite securing a replacement. Moreover, she refused to comply with the instruction to transfer to a different work in accordance with her employment contract. The employer then unilaterally terminated her employment, labelling her misconduct as gross breach of duties.

Both lower courts issued a judgement in favour of the employee, thus rendering the notice of termination invalid. They concluded that the employee otherwise maintained stable work performance and even went above what was required of her multiple times in the past. Failing to show up for work that one time was not grounds for terminating her employment due to gross breach of duties. The appellate court also pointed out that the employee did not have to comply with the instruction to transfer to a different work because the employer did not have her consent.

 

The Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court’s judgement and ruled in favor of the employer. As the statutory provisions relevant to this case lack explicit definitions of the terms labelling the different levels of intensity of an employee’s breach of duties, it is up to the courts to assess in each individual case at which level the employee’s misconduct lands. The courts must then take into consideration several things, including the employee’s previous attitude towards work and the consequences of the breach of duties for the employer.

The Supreme Court emphasised that an employee must respect the organisational authority of the employer, including scheduling of shifts and determination of vacation time. Unexcused absence from work despite the employer’s repeated denial of vacation constituted a gross breach of duties. Such conduct undermines the employer’s trust in the employee and is adequate to justify unilateral termination of employment. The employee’s arrangement of a replacement does not change the evaluation of the situation. The Court did not address the second termination reason, as the first reason was found sufficient on its own. It was thus concluded that in certain circumstances, employees who once grossly fail to fulfil their duties can be terminated, although they otherwise have a good reputation and are reliable.

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel

• Courts have discretion in evaluating an employee’s breach of duties but must consider factors outlined in past Supreme Court rulings.
• Even a reliable employee may be terminated for a single act of serious misconduct.
• Employers control schedules of leave and unexcused absences are unacceptable.