Dismissal For Serious Breach In Slovakia: A High Bar For Employers

• Published date: 13 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Criminal Law, Unfair/ Wrongful Dismissal, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, White Collar Crime, Anti-Corruption & Fraud
• Law Firm: lus Laboris
• Author: Mr Marek Bugan (Nitschneider & Partners)

The Slovak Supreme Court has clarified the standard of proof employers need to meet in dismissing an employee for a serious breach of discipline.

In 2021, the Slovakian Supreme Court dealt with a case of invalid termination of employment by dismissal for a serious breach of work discipline (Article 63 (1) (e) of the Labour Code): corruption.

The employee worked as a chief dispatcher for bus trips. According to the statement of reasons for the dismissal, the employee's corruption was supposed to consist in accepting bribes from bus drivers, in return for which he assigned them more advantageous (better paid) bus trips. The employee did not agree with the reasons for dismissal and applied to the court for a declaration of invalidity of the termination of employment.

For a successful defence, the employer had to prove that there was in fact corruption in the workplace. Both the District Court and the Regional Court agreed that the employer had not proven corruption in the workplace. One of the reasons was that the employer learned about the reasons for the dismissal indirectly from notifications from the bus drivers' representatives. This showed he had not personally proved the reason for the dismissal. This was also evidenced by the wording of the disputed statement, which conveyed suspicion of corruption by the plaintiff rather than certainty. According to the courts, it was not clear from the content of the statement that the defendant was convinced of the plaintiff's unlawful conduct, nor did it contain objective facts which would prove his corrupt conduct.

On appeal, the employer argued that he had sufficiently proved corruption when one of the witnesses admitted the provision of a bribe of EUR 100 and other witnesses testified that they had heard of bribes from drivers for more favourable rides.

The employee claimed that there was no corruption. He challenged the witness statements by stating that none of the witnesses had confirmed the plaintiff's allegedly corrupt behaviour; they did not remember who had told them and when. On the contrary, one witness stated that she was present at the...