Termination of the employment relationship on individual employee-related grounds was made easier by a legislative amendment that entered into force at the beginning of 2026. For now, it is difficult to determine the threshold for dismissal, as there is not yet any case law for the amended legislation.

Dismissal requires a proper reason 

Before the amendment, the termination of the employment relationship on individual employee-related grounds required a proper and weighty reason. The current Government carried out a reform to eliminate the requirement of a weighty reason. The question of whether there was a proper and weighty reason had usually been considered as a whole, so there was confusion regarding how the legislative amendment actually changed the consideration of the reason. 

Not every instance of reproachable behavior or inadequate performance will constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal. Minor or discriminatory reasons will still not be considered a proper reason for dismissal. In addition, the law still specifies the prohibited grounds for dismissal. 

At the very least, situations in which the employee breaches or neglects their obligations arising from the employment relationship can be considered a proper reason for terminating the employment contract. Such a reason may be, for example, ignoring the employer’s instructions, neglect of duties or carelessness in the performance of work. Absences for no valid reason and inappropriate conduct may also be grounds for dismissal. 

 In considering the grounds for dismissal, it is also still essential to consider whether the termination of the employment relationship is a reasonable action in relation to how the employee has breached their obligations.  The consideration will continue to be carried out as a comprehensive consideration that must take into account the employee’s and the employer’s circumstances as a whole. 

Is underperformance a proper reason for dismissal? 

According to previous case law, underperformance could, under certain conditions, be a proper reason for dismissal. Underperformance was a much-discussed topic when the legislative amendment was being drafted, but it was not separately mentioned in the provision as a ground for dismissal. Following the amendment, it may still be considered a ground for terminating an employment relationship. However, the issue must be considered on a case-by-case basis and in compliance with all statutory provisions.  

The employer must support the employee’s coping at work 

Even under the current law, dismissal may be justified if employee’s capacity to perform work has changed so significantly that they are no longer able to carry out their duties. Usually, such cases involve longer periods of sick leave, but other severe reductions in work ability may also justify dismissal. However, it should be remembered that the employer must take reasonable measures to enable the employee to work if they have difficulties carrying out their duties due to an illness or injury. 

The law still provides that, in these situations, the employer must investigate whether the dismissal could be avoided by reassigning the employee to other duties. In some situations, reasonable accommodations specified separately in the Non-Discrimination Act may also be required. 

It is worth noting that the obligation to investigate the possibility of reassignment to other duties as an alternative to dismissal only applies in cases of reduced work ability – for other grounds, the obligation no longer exists.  

Giving a warning is still absolutely required in most cases 

As before, employers are usually required to give a warning before dismissing an employee. With a warning, the employer gives the employee the opportunity to amend their conduct. This means that, in practice, the related obligations were not changed. In some exceptional cases, the employer may terminate the employment relationship without giving a warning first, but the reason for dismissal must also be more serious in such cases. However, we do not yet know where this threshold will be set following the legislative amendment. 

New case law will take years to accumulate 

Case law for the previous legislation accumulated over many decades. Nevertheless, the consideration of dismissals always required taking into account all details of the situation. In practice, this is still true, although the amended legislation and the new threshold for dismissal have not yet been tested in the highest courts. It takes years for cases to move from a court of first instance to a supreme court, which means that this slight uncertainty will continue for a long time.

Read more of the latest articles from our legal counsels and employment specialists on our website