Over the summer, numerous major employers in Lithuania had either terminated or tightened their hybrid work policies, mandating employees to be present in the office for at least three days per week. This shift is in line with global trends, particularly among technology companies, which have largely abandoned remote work arrangements. Since the pandemic ended, many companies have gradually moved their workforce back to the office, citing decreased productivity and employee engagement as primary reasons for this shift.
A significant complication with this approach arises from the amendment to the Lithuanian Labor Code adopted in 2022, which grants specific categories of employees the right to request full-time remote work. These categories include pregnant or breastfeeding employees, employees raising at least one child under eight years old, employees raising a child under 14 or a disabled child under 18 as a single parent, disabled employees, those with a medical recommendation to work remotely, and employees responsible for caring for family members with illness or disability. Before this amendment, employees in these categories could request remote work for only 20% of their working hours, and the categories themselves were more limited (e.g., parents of children under three).
As a result of this legislative change, a substantial portion of the workforce now falls within these protected categories, entitling them to request full-time remote work. The Labor Code allows employers to refuse such requests, provided they can demonstrate that accommodating remote work would create excessive costs due to production needs or specific organizational requirements. Despite this provision, financial concerns are rarely the main issue raised by employers. Instead, they typically cite issues related to poor employee performance, weakened company culture, and low engagement as reasons for reducing remote work opportunities. Employers also highlight the challenges of providing effective leadership and mentoring when teams are dispersed. Moreover, some employees reportedly exploit the flexibility of remote work, taking extended lunch breaks or completing their work earlier than expected. Unfortunately, under the current legislation, these reasons are insufficient to mandate an employee’s return to the office unless it can be proven that financial or operational harm will result.
This legal framework has led to problematic and, at times, absurd situations. For instance, when an employee commits a serious breach of job duties, losing the trust of the employer, they may still be allowed to work remotely, as the law does not allow for mandatory office attendance under such circumstances. Furthermore, the Labor Code lacks specific provisions regarding when employees in protected categories may be required to come into the office, even if they are working remotely full-time. For example, situations such as team training, teambuilding events, or meetings with clients or business partners are not explicitly addressed in the legislation. Consequently, employees are free to decide whether to attend such activities without the risk of facing disciplinary action. This is especially concerning given that the EU Framework Agreement on Telework emphasizes the voluntary nature of remote work, whereas Lithuanian legislation effectively obliges employers to allow remote work, even when it may not be a feasible or practical solution.
Faced with these challenges, employers are increasingly inclined to interpret the Labor Code’s provisions loosely. They often argue that excessive costs would arise, even in cases where this is highly debatable (e.g., in cases of poor performance or ineffective team management). Such broad interpretations have resulted in a growing number of legal disputes, with employees challenging what they view as unreasonable demands to return to the office. This has given rise to a new category of employment disputes, centered on conflicts over remote work arrangements and demands for in-office presence. At present, the decisions handed down by Labor Dispute Commissions (pre-trial dispute resolution bodies) and courts on these issues are inconsistent, creating further uncertainty for both employers and employees.
The tension between employer-driven policies and the rights established under the Lithuanian Labor Code underscores the complexities of balancing productivity with employee autonomy in the evolving post-pandemic work environment. As hybrid and remote work arrangements continue to develop, the need for clearer legal guidelines becomes increasingly urgent. This will help to prevent the escalation of disputes and ensure greater stability for both employers and employees.
Without further legislative refinement or more consistent judicial decisions, the conflict between business needs and employee entitlements is likely to persist, potentially reshaping Lithuania’s labor landscape for years to come.
By Jovita Valatkaite, Associate Partner, Cobalt
This article was originally published in Issue 11.10 of the CEE Legal Matters Magazine. If you would like to receive a hard copy of the magazine, you can subscribe here.
