In the aforementioned situation, what causes even more anxiety for the woman is that the second month of work is already ending, but the employer has not yet asked for her existing account details.
Read more Irma, who almost buried her mother due to pancreatitis: «We had to call a priest»
According to the lawyer, in a normal case, an employer can offer an employee to open an account in a bank of their choice, but cannot unilaterally oblige them to do so solely due to their accounting system, agreement with a bank, or more convenient payment administration.
“An employee has the right to specify their existing personal payment account, and the employer must transfer the salary precisely to the account specified by the employee,” emphasized R. Joskaudienė.
However, the lawyer reminds that there is one very important practical condition: the employee must clearly and, preferably, in writing, provide all correct data necessary for the payment. Therefore, in the aforementioned situation, in which the woman found herself, one should not wait for the employer to ask for the account number again, the lawyer stated.
“Provide your account details in writing now, ask for confirmation of their receipt, and specify the salary payment day. If the deadline for the first month’s salary payment has already passed, also demand immediate payment of the salary. If the employer refuses to do so, contact the Labor Dispute Commission, without missing the three-month deadline.
An employer can offer a specific bank, but cannot change the employee’s choice with a unilateral instruction. Earned salary is not the employer’s grace – it is an enforceable obligation,” emphasized R. Joskaudienė.
The account is specified by the employee, not the employer
Article 139, Part 3 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Lithuania stipulates that wages, other payments related to employment relationships, daily allowances, and compensation for business trip expenses must be paid by transfer “to the employee’s specified payment account”.
Both elements are important in this legal norm:
* the account is specified by the employee, not chosen by the employer;
* it must be the employee’s personal payment account.
“Thus, the legal act does not grant the employer the right to decide in which bank the employee must become a client. The mere fact that it is more convenient for the employer to transfer all salaries through one bank does not turn this organizational convenience into a legal obligation for the employee.
A three-month fixed-term or seasonal employment contract does not change this rule. Refusal to open an additional account in the employer’s chosen bank also cannot be a legitimate reason to withhold the employee’s earned salary if the employee has provided comprehensive details of their payment account,” explained R. Joskaudienė.
It does not necessarily have to be a Lithuanian bank account
The State Labor Inspectorate (VDI) explains that the Labor Code does not require salary to be paid only into an account of a bank operating in Lithuania.
The VDI specifies that an employee’s account can be:
* in a Lithuanian or foreign bank;
* in a credit union;
* in a payment or other financial institution, if it is an employee’s payment account and a transfer can be made to it.
Thus, the law uses a broader concept – not just “bank account”, but “payment account”. An employee is not obliged to change their financial service provider simply because the employer uses the services of another bank.
If the employee’s account is in another European Union member state and a corresponding payment in euros can be made to it, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No. 260/2012 is additionally relevant. According to it, the payer cannot demand that the recipient’s payment account be specifically in a particular member state. Such refusal to accept an account from another EU country is often referred to in practice as IBAN discrimination.
Important legal exception
The VDI has noted that, under the conditions set out in Article 33, Part 4 of the Labor Code, an employee receiving a very high salary and the employer can individually agree on a deviation from some imperative labor law rules, provided that the balance of interests of the parties is maintained.
However, this must be a genuine agreement between both parties, not a unilateral instruction from the employer. Therefore, this exception does not grant the employer a general right to impose a specific bank on all employees, the lawyer emphasizes.
The employee should have been informed about the salary payment procedure in advance
Article 44 of the Labor Code obliges the employer to provide the employee with information in writing before the start of work about:
Read more Cuban President accused the US of seeking to seize the island
* salary and its components;
* salary payment deadlines;
* salary payment procedure.
“Therefore, a situation where an employee has been working for almost two months, but it is still unclear when and to which account the salary will be paid, is not a proper practice for managing employment relationships. The employee should not have to guess when the salary will be paid or wait for the employer to remember to ask for the account number,” said R. Joskaudienė.
She added that, nevertheless, in employment relationships, both parties must cooperate in good faith. Therefore, it is also not recommended for the employee to remain passive. She should immediately provide her account details to the employer and keep proof that she has done so.
“This is also important in case of a possible dispute. If the employee does not provide any account at all, or provides incomplete data and does not respond to requests to clarify them, this circumstance may be relevant in assessing whose fault it was that the payment was not made on time and whether the employee is entitled to late payment interest or penalties.
However, the employer’s mere statement “we only pay into this bank” is not enough. The employer must explain what specific data is missing and why it is impossible to make the payment using the details provided by the employee,” commented R. Joskaudienė.
What have the courts said about such a requirement?
Particularly significant for this issue is the Panevėžys Regional Court’s decision of October 29, 2025, in civil case No. e2A-504-1059/2025.
In the case, the employer claimed that they could not settle with the employee because the latter did not provide proper account details and it was agreed that the employee would open an account in a Lithuanian bank. The employee had provided a foreign, specifically a Polish bank, account, but the employer did not transfer money to it and demanded that an account be opened in Lithuania.
The courts noted that even when the employee provided correct, but not entirely complete payment data, the employer:
* did not explain what specific data was missing;
* did not ask to clarify the country of the bank’s headquarters;
* did not specify why, according to the provided account format, the transfer could not be made;
* unreasonably demanded that the employee open an account in Lithuania.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that it is the employer who must ascertain in advance where the funds belonging to the employee will be transferred and cannot automatically shift the consequences of their improper work organization to the employee, who is considered the weaker party in employment relationships. The employer’s demand to open an account in Lithuania was deemed completely unfounded under the specific circumstances of the case, and the employee was awarded penalties for delayed payment.
“The facts of this case are not entirely identical to the reader’s situation – it concerned a foreign bank account and final settlement upon termination of employment. Furthermore, it is a decision of the appellate, not the cassation, instance. However, the principle formulated by the court is very relevant to this situation:
an employer cannot unreasonably reject an employee’s provided personal payment account and justify their inaction by the employee not opening an account in the employer’s chosen bank,” the lawyer stated.
Is the salary already late?
Solely from the fact that the second month of work is ending, it cannot yet be definitively said whether the salary payment deadline has already been missed. First, it is necessary to check:
* the salary payment day specified in the employment contract;
* information provided to the employee about working conditions;
* the salary payment procedure valid at the workplace;
* whether the employee has already received the salary for the first month.
Article 146 of the Labor Code stipulates that salary is paid at least twice a month, and once a month if requested by the employee. Payment for work during a calendar month must usually be settled no later than ten working days from the end of that month, unless labor law norms or the employment contract stipulate otherwise.
Therefore, if the employment contract, for example, stipulates that the salary is paid by the 10th day of the next month, and this day has already passed, the salary is considered late. In such a case, the employee should not only provide account details but also demand in writing the immediate payment of the overdue salary.
Upon termination of a three-month employment contract, the employer will also have to make a final settlement with the employee, including the due salary and, if applicable, compensation for unused annual leave. According to the currently valid regulation, final settlement is usually made no later than the day of termination of employment, unless the parties lawfully agree on another term permitted by law.
