The so-called “flexinovela” amendment of the Labour Code (CZ) effective from 1 June 2025 brings a number of fundamental changes, especially in terminating employment. For employers intending to issue a notice to an employee for breach of duty or to terminate employment immediately, the statutory time limits for doing so have been extended. This amendment addresses the practical needs of employers who have previously struggled to thoroughly investigate cases within the existing time frames. In this post, we will take a closer look at these revised time limits for issuing notices and immediate terminations. Generally speaking - what kind of time limits do we have and why are they important
The Labour Code (Czech Republic) establishes specific time limits within which an employer must act when terminating an employment relationship due to an employee's breach of duty or for immediate termination of a work contract. If an employer wishes to provide notice according to Section 52(g) of the Labour Code or to immediately terminate the employment relationship under Section 55, they must do so within the time limits outlined in the Labour Code. These limits are known as time-barred, meaning that courts will consider their expiration automatically.
The basic division of time limits is as follows:
- Subjective time limit - starts when the employer becomes aware of the reason for the termination.
- Objective time limit - starts from the moment the act occurred, regardless of the employer’s knowledge.
To be valid, notice or immediate termination must be given to the employee before either of these time limits expires. In other words, the employer must catch both - otherwise, the employment relationship can no longer be validly terminated in this way.
This regulation aims to protect the employee against the employer "waiting" for the appropriate moment and postponing the termination of the employment relationship indefinitely. However, it also forces the employer to act relatively quickly, which in some of the more complex cases may not be easy.
When does the subjective time limit start?
The calculation of the subjective time limit - that is, the one that starts to run from the moment the employer becomes aware of the reason for giving a notice or immediate termination - can sometimes be problematic in practice. It is not enough to know that something has happened. It's not enough for the employer to suspect misconduct—there must be sufficient detail to begin a legal assessment.
According to the case law, the subjective time limit does not start to run for the employer from the mere assumption that the reason for giving a notice or immediate termination has occurred or based on the assumption that the employer must or could have known about such reason on a certain date. The decisive point is only the moment when the employer became demonstrably aware of the reason (see the Supreme Court judgment of 6 February 2001, Case No 21 Cdo 13/2000). The employer usually becomes aware of the reason for giving notice or immediate termination at the moment when the employee's immediate superior or any superior becomes aware of it (specific situations are those where the employee's superior has also breached their duties together with the employee).
What about ongoing or continuing breaches of duty?
In some cases, the employee does not commit only one specific misconduct, but breaches their duties over a longer period of time or repeatedly - for example, repeatedly violating a ban on competitive activity or prolonged unexcused absences.
In these cases, the time limit typically begins only after the breach of duties has ended, such as when an employee returns to work following a prolonged unexcused absence. the Supreme Court judgment of 27 March 2002, Case No. 21 Cdo 910/2001).
The situation is similar in cases of consistent minor breaches of duties, i.e. multiple individual breaches in a row. In these cases, the subjective time limit for giving notice to the employer does not run for each breach of duties separately, but only from the moment when the employer became aware of the last less serious breach on the basis of which it gives notice (see the Supreme Court judgment of 16 April 2009, Case No. 21 Cdo 441/2008).
Extension of time limits by the “flexinovela” and its benefits
With the “flexinovela”, which responded to some of the practical problems with both types of time limits, the following extension of both types took effect from 1 June 2025:
- the subjective time limit has been extended from 2 to 3 months,
- the objective time limit has been extended from 12 to 15 months.
Please note that the amended time limits only apply to cases where the breach of employment duty occurred from 1 June 2025.
The main motivation for this amendment was practicality: employers often failed to investigate, evaluate and decide on appropriate disciplinary action within 2 months. Typically, larger employers often have to wait for the results of an internal or even group investigatory body, consult with internal or external legal departments or wait for final approval within the group. Investigating whether an employee has breached their work duties requires a thorough examination of all relevant circumstances. This often includes interviewing witnesses, evaluating documentary evidence, checking CCTV footage, and other investigative steps to determine if a breach occurred and its extent. All this takes time.
Extended time limits will thus help employers to respond more effectively and efficiently to real situations with less risk that the termination will subsequently be declared invalid by a court with all the negative consequences for the employer.
Conclusion
The extension of the statutory time limits for notice for breach of duty and immediate termination of employment by the employer is a welcomed step for employers and a step towards greater legal certainty and efficiency. The new amendment reduces the pressure for hasty decisions and gives employers more room to carefully investigate and evaluate the circumstances of the case, thus reducing the risk that a notice on the basis of breach of duty will be invalid. However, it remains crucial to correctly determine the start of the time limits and to have a demonstrable basis for it. Thus, in practice, even after the amendment takes effect, we cannot do without thorough documentation and procedural caution.
It is worth repeating that the extended time limits apply to cases occurring from 1 June 2025. Breaches of employment duties that occurred earlier will still be governed by the original, shorter time limits under the current legislation before the amendment.
Employers should therefore use the amendment as an opportunity to examine their internal processes. We recommend reviewing existing work schedules, introducing a uniform system for recording, investigating and evaluating breaches of work duties and ensuring that managers are adequately trained. In employment law, it is often not only the facts that are decisive, but also the ability to prove them plausibly and to react in a timely manner.
By Ondrej Sudoma, Counsel, and Debora Cibulkova, Junior Associate, Eversheds Sutherland
