Invalid dismissal for redundancy

Have you received a dismissal due to redundancy, with the argument that your work is no longer necessary due to organizational changes? It often happens that such a dismissal is invalid, and the employee has the right to challenge it.

Legal framework

Section 52(c) of the Labor Code stipulates: "An employer may terminate an employee’s contract only for the following reasons: if the employee becomes redundant as a result of the employer’s or a relevant authority’s decision to change its tasks, technical equipment, reduce the number of employees to increase work efficiency, or due to other organizational changes."

However, this does not mean that the employer has the right to adopt any organizational decision and, on that basis, dismiss an employee due to redundancy.

According to expert commentary on the Labor Code (JANŠOVÁ, Marie. § 52 [Grounds for Dismissal]. In: VALENTOVÁ, Klára, PROCHÁZKA, Jan, JANŠOVÁ, Marie, ODROBINOVÁ, Veronika, BRŮHA, Dominik et al. Labor Code. 2nd edition. Prague: C. H. Beck, 2022, p. 197, marg. no. 27.), it follows: "In later Supreme Court decisions, conclusions can be found, especially in situations where the employer implemented a different organizational arrangement, resulting in, for example, the merging of some positions, their separation, etc. If the specific type of work performed by the dismissed employee does not become redundant (in terms of its substantive content) considering the necessary professional structure of employees, another circumstance—such as a mere organizational restructuring of the employer—cannot serve as a basis for termination of employment under Section 52(c) (NS 21 Cdo 2457/2015 or 21 Cdo 4568/2017)."

The Supreme Court decision Ref. No. 21 Cdo 2457/2015 explicitly states: "It must be considered that an employee becomes redundant under Section 52(c) of the Labor Code when, due to the employer's decision regarding an organizational change, the employer no longer has the possibility to employ the worker in the position agreed upon in the employment contract. However, if the specific type of work agreed upon in the employment contract does not become redundant (in terms of its substantive content), another circumstance, such as merely a different organizational structure of the employer, cannot serve as a basis for termination of employment under Section 52(c) of the Labor Code."

Conclusions from the legal framework

The above case law indicates that, for the conditions of dismissal under Section 52(c) of the Labor Code to be met, it is necessary for the employee’s work itself to become redundant—not the employee as a worker.

This is logical to some extent: the employer could easily get rid of an inconvenient employee by transferring their work to another person, labeling it as an organizational change, and arguing that the employee is no longer needed. However, case law considers such situations and insists that the employee’s work itself must become redundant, preventing such misuse of the redundancy clause.

What to do about an invalid dismissal

If you receive a dismissal you consider invalid, you must send the employer a formal notice under Section 69(1) of the Labor Code, stating that you insist on continuing your employment. If the employer does not respond, you must file a lawsuit with the court challenging the dismissal's validity under Section 72 of the Labor Code.

Additionally, according to case law (NS ČSSR 6 Cz 215/67 = Rc 57/1968, NS SR 6 Cz 1/91 = Rc 3/1992), the burden of proof regarding redundancy lies with the employer, not the employee.

Invalidating a dismissal can result in significant financial compensation for the employee—it is not uncommon for employers to be required to pay the employee one year’s salary or more.

It is advisable to seek legal assistance in such cases. If you have doubts about the validity of your dismissal, feel free to contact me to discuss your options.