The judgment of the Supreme Court of January 21, 2026, file no. 21 Cdo 946/2025, represents a significant decision for employment law practice in cases where an employee's conduct at the workplace infringes upon the privacy of other individuals while simultaneously becoming the subject of investigation by public authorities. In this ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of the immediate termination of employment of a children's home educator who placed an eavesdropping device in a social worker's office, while also interpreting the statutory limitation period for immediate termination in a situation involving a concurrent police investigation.
In the case at hand, the employee, according to the courts' factual findings, unlawfully entered his colleague's office and placed a recording device intended to capture communications. The employee argued in particular his personal motivation, the absence of any intent to harm the employer, and the fact that he neither actually made nor used any recordings. He also claimed that the immediate termination of employment was made untimely, as the employer proceeded with it only after the matter had been investigated by the police.
The Supreme Court concurred with the conclusions of the lower-tier courts, according to which the decisive factor was not merely the placement of the eavesdropping device itself, but primarily the circumstances under which it occurred. The employee worked as an educator in a children's home—an environment built on trust, safety, predictability, and the protection of the privacy of both children and staff. Furthermore, the social worker's office was used to discuss sensitive matters concerning the facility's residents. The court therefore emphasized the infringement upon the privacy of the affected persons and the disruption of mutual trust in the workplace, concluding that the employer could not reasonably be expected to continue employing the educator.
Intensity of Breach of Employment Duties
Equally significant is the portion of the decision addressing the intensity of the breach of employment duties. The Supreme Court reiterated that assessing whether a breach constitutes a particularly gross violation within the meaning of Section 55(1)(b) of the Labour Code always depends on the specific circumstances of the case. It is not a mechanical evaluation of individual factors, but rather a comprehensive assessment of the employee's person, the nature of the work performed, the character of the breached duty, the degree of culpability, the consequences of the conduct for the employer, and the significance of mutual trust in the employment relationship. In the present case, the gravity of the privacy violation and breach of trust outweighed the employee's arguments regarding his previous unblemished record or personal motivation.
Interpretation of the Time Limit for Immediate Termination
The second key issue was how to interpret Section 58(2) of the Labour Code, which sets the time limit for the immediate termination of employment. From the literal wording of this provision, it might appear that the time limit for immediate termination is extended only if the police or another authority begins investigating the matter after the employer has learned of the potential violation. However, the Supreme Court reached a more practical conclusion. According to the court, it is not essential when the investigation was initiated, but rather whether the employee's conduct is the subject of an investigation by another authority during the running of this time limit. The employer may thus await the outcome of this investigation and only then decide whether to immediately terminate the employment. The time limit for this step is then derived from the moment the employer becomes acquainted with the results of the investigation.
Conclusion and Practical Implications
The significance of the decision lies primarily in the protection of privacy and trust against unlawful employee conduct, as well as in the practical clarification of the conditions under which an employer may await the results of a police investigation. For practice, it is crucial that the unauthorized acquisition—or even the mere preparation of capturing audio recordings at the workplace—can constitute a particularly gross breach of employment duties, especially when combined with access to sensitive information and the disruption of trust within the organization.
This text was translated by AI.
