Dismissal without notice is the sharpest instrument in an employer's hands — the employment relationship ends immediately, with no notice period and no severance pay. That is precisely why the law allows it only in narrowly defined, serious cases of breach of work order and discipline. But as the practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Macedonia shows, the difference between a lawful and an unlawful dismissal rarely lies in the ground itself — it almost always lies in the evidence.
This guide first explains the legal ground briefly and concretely, and then, through real Supreme Court rulings, shows why seemingly „clear“ situations such as sick-leave abuse, theft, absence from work or alcohol end differently depending on what was proven and how. The text is informational and does not constitute legal advice.
What does Article 82 of the Law on Labour Relations say?
The ground for dismissal without notice due to a breach of work order and discipline is Article 82 of the Law on Labour Relations (LLR). Under paragraph 1, the employer may terminate the employment contract without notice when the employee breaches work order and discipline or fails to fulfil work obligations, and in particular if the employee:
- is unjustifiably absent from work for three consecutive working days or five working days in the course of one year;
- abuses sick leave;
- fails to comply with the regulations on health protection, occupational safety, fire, explosion, the harmful effect of poisons and other hazardous substances, or violates the environmental protection regulations;
- brings in, uses or is under the influence of alcohol and narcotic substances;
- commits theft or, in connection with the work, intentionally or through gross negligence causes damage to the employer;
- discloses a business, official or state secret.
Under paragraph 2, other cases of breach of work order and discipline resulting in dismissal without notice may be established by law and by a collective agreement.
This list looks clear — and it is. The problem in practice is not whether, for example, sick-leave abuse is a ground for dismissal (it is), but whether the employer can prove that it actually happened, in what period and in what way.
The golden rule: the burden of proof lies with the employer
If there is one common thread running through all dismissal disputes, it is this principle: the employer must state the legal ground in its dismissal decision, but also prove that the reason justifying the dismissal is well founded. Under Article 72 of the LLR, the decision must state how, through which concrete acts, in what time period and so on the employee committed the breach. A brief decision reading „due to sick-leave abuse“ or „due to theft“, without dates, evidence and reasoning, as a rule will not stand up in court.
A second principle: before the dismissal, a proper disciplinary procedure must be carried out, in which the employee is given the opportunity to respond (the adversarial nature of the procedure). Failures in the procedure are an independent ground for annulling the dismissal, regardless of whether the breach actually occurred.
What follows are four real cases that bring these principles to life.
Sick-leave abuse: the photographs must prove exactly that
Sick-leave abuse (Article 82(1)(2)) is a common but awkward ground, because the employer must prove that the employee, instead of recovering, behaved in a way that contradicts the illness — and did so precisely during the sick-leave period.
In one case before the Supreme Court (REV3-19/26), an employee — a lead craftsman — was dismissed because, while twice on sick leave, he had allegedly posted photographs of outings to recreational spots and of drinking alcohol on „Facebook“. The employer relied precisely on those pictures. However, the courts found that the photographs were taken during 2022 and were shared by another person on his profile in 2023 — and were not taken during the disputed sick leaves. The pictures showed a date, but not the year, and the employer did not submit an IT expert opinion that would confirm that the pictures were taken precisely on the days of the sick leave.
The Supreme Court rejected the employer's appeal on points of law and confirmed that the dismissal was unlawful. The lesson is precise: sick-leave abuse can be proven with photographs, but they must be relevant and truthful — they must establish with certainty that the conduct occurred exactly during the sick-leave period. A picture with no established date and time, unexplained and unsupported by an expert opinion, is not evidence but an assumption.
Theft: suspicion is not proof
Theft (Article 82(1)(5)) sounds like the firmest ground for dismissal — but this is precisely where employers most often go wrong, equating being a suspect with being proven guilty.
In case REV3-49/25, an employee working as a transporter was dismissed for the alleged theft of 48,000 single-use gloves worth over 509,000 denars. The employer had a record of the event, video footage handed over to the Ministry of the Interior, and the employee was named and taken in as a suspect; in his statement he did not deny the theft. The second-instance court considered this sufficient and rejected the employee's claim.
The Supreme Court, however, upheld the employee's appeal and annulled the dismissal. The key holding: the fact that the employee was named as one of the suspects and taken in by the Ministry of the Interior does not constitute proof that he committed the act, nor does it prove that the reason for dismissal was well founded. The employer was obliged to state the concrete acts in the decision and to submit evidence establishing with certainty that this particular employee carried out the theft — and that was missing. In addition, a proper disciplinary procedure under the collective agreement was not conducted.
The lesson: being a suspect, being taken in, even the employee's silence, are no substitute for evidence. The criminal and the labour proceedings are separate, but even in the labour proceedings the employer must prove the theft, not merely assert it.
Three days of unjustified absence: it all depends on proper records
Unjustified absence from work for three consecutive working days (or five in the course of one year) is a ground under Article 82(1)(1). Here the outcome depends almost entirely on the quality of the employer's records.
In case REV3-10/26, an employee (a cleaner) was dismissed for unjustified absence. The employer had a detailed attendance report for a comparison period (from 1 May to 25 August), an extract from the working-time attendance book and electronic records, which showed that, apart from the days covered by sick leave, the employee failed to report to work for about 35 consecutive working days. The records clearly distinguished what was justified absence (sick leave) from what was not. On the basis of such orderly and comparative records, the Supreme Court concluded that the dismissal was lawful and upheld the employer's appeal.
This case is instructive because it shows what makes the difference: properly kept working-time records, clearly defined dates of absence, a distinction between justified and unjustified absences, and a comparison period confirming attendance before and after the disputed days. With flexible working time and electronic records, an employer that does not keep precise records risks being unable to prove exactly which three consecutive days the employee was unjustifiably absent — and that is a condition for the lawfulness of the dismissal.
Alcohol at work: the correct procedure matters, not whether work had started
Being under the influence of alcohol (Article 82(1)(4)) is a ground over which there is often a dispute about whether the employee had started working at all and whether the process was disrupted.
In case REV3-16/25, an employee (a welder) was breathalysed by security before the start of working hours at the entrance gate, where a blood alcohol level of 0.33 per mille was established. A record was drawn up for the test in accordance with the employer's internal rulebook, with a breathalyser bearing a marked number, a list of the persons tested and witnesses; the employee was not allowed onto the workplace and a disciplinary procedure was initiated. The employee objected that the alcohol came from „sherry bonbons“, that there had been no special training on the device and that the record had no stamp, as well as that he had not started work at all.
The Supreme Court rejected the employee's appeal and confirmed that the dismissal was lawful. The key holding: under Article 82(1)(4) it is sufficient that the employee brings in, uses or is under the influence of alcohol — there is no need to prove that he started work or that he disrupted the work process. Once he came to work under the influence of alcohol and registered his presence, the breach was committed.
The lesson for a correct decision in such cases is twofold. On the one hand, the employer must carry out the procedure correctly — testing in accordance with an internal rulebook, an alcohol-test record with all the details, a list of tested persons, removal from the workplace and a proper disciplinary procedure with an obtained opinion. On the other hand, objections about „minor“ formal omissions or claims about a harmless origin of the alcohol do not save the employee if the presence of alcohol has been established under the prescribed procedure.
A practical check before dismissal without notice
From the analysis of these rulings emerges a clear list of questions the employer should ask before deciding on a dismissal without notice, and which the employee should check if they want to challenge it:
Does the decision state the exact legal ground under Article 82, with concrete acts, dates and a time period? Is the reason proven with material evidence, and not merely asserted? Does the evidence (photographs, footage, tests, records) really relate to the disputed period and is it credible? Was a proper disciplinary procedure carried out with an opportunity for the employee to respond? And are the employer's records orderly enough to withstand these checks?
If the answer to any of these questions is „no“, the risk that the dismissal will be annulled as unlawful — with the employee reinstated and costs reimbursed — is high, as the cited Supreme Court rulings show.
The difference between a lawful and an unlawful dismissal without notice rarely lies in the ground itself, and almost always in the evidence and in a properly conducted procedure. An employer that states the exact ground under Article 82, documents the concrete acts, dates and time period, and carries out an adversarial disciplinary procedure, stands on firm footing. The employee, in turn, is best protected by demanding a reasoned decision and checking whether the reason is truly proven and not merely asserted.
Legal note: This text is informational and educational in nature and is based on Article 82 of the Law on Labour Relations and on an analysis of published practice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Macedonia. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace consultation with a lawyer, who will assess the specific circumstances of your case — whether you are an employee or an employer.
