The state has the right and obligation to establish increased security requirements for individuals employed in critical infrastructure facilities, including imposing restrictions on the employment of citizens from certain countries. However, the implementation of such decisions must comply with the principles of legal trust, proportionality, and social responsibility enshrined in the Constitution (Satversme), reported Ombudsman Karina Palkova.
“Considerations of national security in a democratic and rule-of-law state can be a legitimate basis for such restrictions,” noted Palkova.
At the same time, she emphasizes that a person who was legally employed, paid taxes, and diligently fulfilled their labor duties has the right to expect that the state, when changing legal regulations, will not impose an disproportionate and sudden burden on them without transitional mechanisms.
According to Palkova, the mere fact that the termination of employment occurs in accordance with part five of Article 115 of the Labor Code and formally does not provide for severance pay does not mean that the situation fully complies with human rights requirements.
“In my opinion, the problem in this case lies not so much in the actions of the employer as in the regulation chosen by the legislator and the consequences of its application,” stated the ombudsman.
She also notes that if a person loses their job not due to their own actions, fault, or professional unsuitability, but as a result of a general ban imposed by the state, the question arises as to whether their right to social protection is disproportionately restricted and whether the principle of legal trust is violated. This is especially relevant in cases where the regulation comes into force quickly — without a sufficient transitional period, timely information, or compensatory mechanisms.
In the ombudsman’s opinion, in a democratic and rule-of-law state, the government cannot completely distance itself from the social consequences of its own security decisions. In such situations, the legislator should consider alternative solutions — for example, establishing an adequate transitional period, providing severance pay, or other social protection tools to ensure a fair balance between public safety and fundamental individual rights.
“The ban on the employment of citizens from certain states at critical infrastructure facilities was known in advance, and accordingly, these people had the opportunity to take steps to mitigate the consequences of such requirements,” noted Palkova.
It was previously reported that the Daugavpils Regional Hospital dismissed nearly 50 employees — citizens of Russia and Belarus — on the last working day of January.
The hospital explained that the termination of employment is directly related to the requirements of the National Security Law, which regulates the protection of critical infrastructure. This provision stipulates that citizens of Russia and Belarus cannot be employed at critical infrastructure facilities of categories A, B, and C, as well as at critical infrastructure facilities of special significance at the European level, if the work involves access to information or technological systems that are significant for the functioning of such infrastructure. Such employment is permitted only in exceptional cases — with separate permission from the state security authorities.
Since the hospital is a critical infrastructure facility, the institution is obliged to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements in the field of national security.
Given these restrictions, employment relationships were terminated with 49 employees. The dismissals were made on the basis of part five of Article 115 of the Labor Code, which requires the employer to immediately terminate the employment relationship if the employment of the worker is prohibited by law and it is impossible, with their consent, to provide other suitable work.
It was also reported that the Valsts darba inspekcija (State Labor Inspectorate), commenting on the non-payment of severance pay to the dismissed hospital employees, clarified to the LETA agency: in cases where the basis for terminating the employment relationship is part five of Article 115 of the Labor Code and a legal ban on employment is in effect, the employer is not obliged to pay severance pay.
“Accordingly, there is no violation of labor legislation norms that would require an inspection,” stated the head of the customer support department of the inspectorate, Dace Stivriņa.
Leave a comment