Employment Law
Amendments to the Law “On State Social Insurance”, referred to committee on 17 September 2026
- The draft law aims to regulate the procedure for making state social insurance contributions (SSICs) in cases where an employer has been granted an extension of the payment deadline for SSICs, thereby preventing direct adverse consequences for employees when receiving a state pension. It also seeks to clarify the regulatory framework relating to Latvia’s participation in the joint procurement of Member States for the maintenance and development of the successor system to the National Application.
Supreme Court
The Senate Clarifies Employer Obligations in Granting Childcare Leave
Case SKC-462/2026
- An error made by an employee in specifying the start date of the requested childcare leave, or part thereof, does not render the request invalid and does not provide grounds for the employer to require the employee to submit a new request for childcare leave.
- An employer is required to grant childcare leave no later than one month after receiving the employee’s request, unless the employee has requested a later commencement date. Latvian legislation does not grant employers the discretion to postpone the granting of such leave.
- An employee’s incapacity for work does not suspend or interrupt the one-month period provided for in Section 156(2) of the Labour Law. The Senate noted that an employer may issue an order granting childcare leave during the employee’s incapacity for work, stipulating that the leave will commence once the incapacity ends.
- At the same time, an employee may not unilaterally commence childcare leave without an order from the employer. Even where the employer has incorrectly applied the legal framework, the employee is entitled to submit a complaint to the duly authorised person within the company or bring a claim before a court, rather than independently ceasing to attend work.
The Court’s Obligation to Inform an Employee of Deficiencies in a Claim Seeking Recognition of an Employer’s Notice of Termination as Invalid
Case SKC-710/2026
- If a court considers that a claim for compensation from the employer for a period of forced absence from work or for performing lower-paid work, submitted in proceedings seeking recognition of an employer’s notice of termination as invalid, does not comply with the requirements of Section 126(1) of the Labour Law or Section 128(2)(4) of the Civil Procedure Law, the court is obliged to inform the employee, as claimant, of such deficiencies and, where necessary, adjourn the proceedings to provide an opportunity to rectify them.
- Excessive procedural formalism is not permissible in employment disputes. The Senate emphasised that employment law must take into account the protection of employees as the economically and socially weaker party. Therefore, courts must ensure effective judicial protection rather than dismiss claims due to formal deficiencies.
- An unlawfully dismissed employee is entitled to average earnings for the entire period of forced absence from work. If the employer continues the litigation process, the period of forced absence continues throughout the proceedings. Where the claim of an unlawfully dismissed employee has been upheld but the employer appeals the judgment, the employee remains entitled to average earnings for the period up to the appellate court’s judgment.
