Can become a risky tool
The probationary period is the initial stage of the employment relationship, during which both parties assess mutual suitability. The employer evaluates the employee’s knowledge, practical skills, work quality, and adaptability, while the employee considers whether the working conditions, workload, and organizational environment are acceptable. According to Rūta Globytė, partner at the law firm WIDEN, this is not inherently a mandatory part of every employment contract, but rather an additional condition that the employer and employee may agree upon when concluding the employment contract.
Read more France and Italy took action over the crisis in Ceuta
According to the lawyer, amendments to the Labor Code coming into effect on November 1, 2026, which provide for the possibility to extend the probationary period up to 6 months for employees whose salary is at least 2 average wages (currently about 5108 EUR gross), have a rational basis. For managerial or highly qualified positions, 3 months is often insufficient to assess real results, so this would give employers more flexibility and reduce the risk of committing long-term to an unsuitable employee.
“On the other hand, for employees, this would mean a longer period of legal insecurity during which they can be dismissed under simplified procedures (with 3 working days’ notice, without severance pay), and the chosen separation criterion based on salary raises questions about proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. A higher salary does not automatically mean that an employee needs a longer evaluation period, so it would be more appropriate to link a longer probationary period to the nature of the position (managerial, responsible functions).
Practically speaking, the decision would be balanced only if employee guarantees are maintained (prohibition of discrimination and dismissal during pregnancy, requirement to justify unsuitability), otherwise a longer term risks becoming a tool to circumvent standard dismissal procedures,” says R. Globytė.
There are more important issues than salary
Violeta Jakutė, head of the personnel search and selection agency “Emplonet,” also says that the 3-month term can indeed be too short. But again, not because a specialist earns more than 2 average wages, but because in some positions the decision-making and real results cycle is longer than a quarter.
“For example, a financial controller responsible for business plan modeling and implementing analytics systems often spends the first 3 months just getting familiar with the context. Some of their functions and results will be visible quickly: budget execution control, cash flow planning, KPI reports. But other functions – business plan modeling for new projects, implementation and development of operational analytics systems, process optimization – have a longer activity and result cycle.
So, in 3 months you can only see part of the overall picture, whether the person understands the context and is moving in the right direction. Meanwhile, a “classic” accountant, who may earn a very similar salary, shows quite clear “signals” of work quality already within the first 1–2 months. Therefore, good practice should not be the automatic application of the maximum term to all positions, but a justification: why exactly this role requires longer observation and evaluation,” V. Jakutė is convinced.
Moreover, she urges attention to the fact that a longer probationary period does not compensate for weaker selection. If the employer fails to assess the candidate’s competencies, value fit, and ability to work in the specific company culture during recruitment, a 6-month trial will not fix that but will only make it easier to terminate the employment relationship.
“If the employer thinks ‘we can check less during recruitment because we will have six months to try out,’ this will not strengthen hiring but weaken it. A longer trial is meaningful only when the employer has a clear onboarding and evaluation plan: what results are expected after 30, 60, 90, and 180 days, who and how will assess progress, when feedback will be given, and according to what criteria the decision will be made,” explains the recruitment expert.
Read more Different fate of US tennis stars in Washington: Fritz saved, Shelton not
There may be a shortage of employees
According to R. Globytė, the probationary period is not a separate type of employment relationship and is not temporary “inferior” employment. It cannot be understood as a time when the employee does not yet have “real” employee status or when the employer can freely disregard labor law requirements. Moreover, this time cannot be used for other purposes, such as artificially reducing employee protection, delaying the formalization of stable employment relationships, or giving the employer unjustifiably broader freedom to terminate the employment contract.
The lawyer also points out that a probationary period can be set in a fixed-term employment contract, but special rules apply. It must be proportional to the entire term of the employment contract.
“For example, now the maximum 3-month probation can only be set when the employment contract is concluded for a period not shorter than 6 months. And if the contract is for a shorter period, the trial must be correspondingly shorter and proportional to the entire contract term,” emphasizes the WIDEN partner.
Although it might seem that the employee has all guarantees during the probationary period, according to V. Jakutė, a longer trial period can reduce the sense of psychological security. The employee bears all the risk: in some cases, leaving an already stable job, adapting to a new organizational culture, while their status remains not fully secured.
“Passive candidates – those who are not actively looking for work but are approached by a potential employer with an offer – may react especially sensitively to such a condition. For them, a 6-month trial can become an additional risk factor, reducing interest in the new position and weakening motivation to change the current job. Such candidates may more often negotiate for higher pay (compensating for the future risk), a shorter trial, or guarantees about what would happen if the employment relationship is terminated at the employer’s initiative.
Still, the biggest change may be seen at the final offer acceptance stage. A candidate may successfully pass the entire selection process but start doubting the 6-month trial condition in the employment contract – and resolve that doubt by staying where they are or choosing an alternative job offer without such a condition,” warns the “Emplonet” head.
She states that a longer trial period can also become a value test. A strong employer brand helps compete for talent, but it must be linked to the real employee experience – attraction, engagement, and retention practices. If an organization declares trust, partnership, and mature leadership but automatically applies the maximum 6-month trial to all employees from 2 average wages, candidates will see a mismatch between communication and actual contract terms. And if such a condition reaches the candidate only at the end of the selection / contract signing stage, it may be perceived as a hidden risk and reduce trust in the employer.
