While employees may unilaterally terminate employment without restrictions except for the notice period, which may not be shorter than 15 nor longer than 30 days, employers are allowed to terminate employment agreements only on grounds stated in the Labor Act. Broadly speaking, these grounds may refer either to employee’s work capacity and conduct, wilful breach of work obligations, disrespect of the work discipline, refusal to sign annex of the employment agreement, or to reasons of restructuring and redundancies. According to the Labor Act,in general, an employment relationship terminates: i) by expiry of the period it was concluded for; ii) when an employee reaches 65 years of age and a minimum of 15 years of social insurance coverage, unless otherwise agreed between the employer and the employee; iii) by agreement between the employee and the employer; iv) by cancellation of employment contract by the employer or the employee; v) at the request of a parent or custodian of an employee younger than 18 years; vi) in the event of death of the employee; vii) in other cases specified by the law.
In the context of the M&A, employment contract termination by an employer due to technological, economic, or organizational changes is the most important ground for termination to bear in mind and most important provision regarding termination by an employer.
An employee’s employment relationship may be terminated if there is a valid reason relating to the employer's needs, as follows: i) If as a result of technological, economic or organizational changes, the need to perform a specific job ceases, or there is a decrease in workload; ii) if he /she refuses to conclude the annex of the contract due to the needs of the process and the organization of work.
Termination of an employment agreement as a result of technological or organizational changes, requires an additional explanation. This provision cannot be used in a simple manner by the mere statement of the employer that economic and organizational changes have occurred in his business. Namely, the dismissal for the above stated reasons also implies an explanation of the change manifestation from which the cessation of the need for the employee's work had emerged. If an employee has received a decision on termination of his employment agreement, or an employer is preparing to deliver such a termination in which this provision is just transcribed without further explanation, the validity of such decisions will be subject to review. The Serbian Supreme Court of Cassation stated in its Decision that employees cannot be laid off solely because the employer is expecting to suffer financial losses meaning that employer must prove it actually incurred that losses. They must be reported in the financial statements and disrupted cash-flow. Employers are not entitled to lay off employees on the basis of anticipation of a business loss. It has to be appropriately reasoned in order for dismissal to survive courts review.
The Labor Act also provides examples of breaches of work obligations and work discipline which justify termination of employment by employers, but employers are free to specify additional work obligations and work discipline whose breach entails termination of employment in bylaws or employment agreements.
Moreover, the Labor Act protects certain categories of employees from dismissal. To that effect, expectant mothers, parents on maternity leave, childcare leave and special childcare leave may not be laid off. Likewise, employees who are engaged in trade union activities or otherwise represent employee requests cannot have their employment terminated due to such activities.