“The Bare Minimum.” Can You Fire an Employee for It?

02.04.2026

Matylda is the Director of PR at an FMCG company. One of her team members is Jacek—a senior specialist with years of industry experience.

Jacek always fulfills his duties. He is reliable and punctual. There is no need to remind him of tasks or correct his work. He causes no organizational issues—he isn’t late, doesn’t engage in conflicts, and doesn’t complain. In fact, Jacek is the kind of employee whose existence one could easily forget.

In team meetings, he usually sits to the side. He listens and takes notes but rarely speaks. If Matylda asks for opinions, Jacek limits himself to a brief “It’s fine with me.” If he isn’t required to participate in something, he simply doesn’t.

Initially, Matylda saw no problem with this. Not everyone has to be a charismatic leader, after all. The most important thing is that the work is delivered and the spreadsheets add up. Over time, however, Matylda noticed growing frustration within the team. Employees began to grumble that they were working significantly more than Jacek. And indeed, there was some truth to that…

This becomes most apparent during “fire drills.” When an urgent project or crisis arises, Jacek usually disappears. At 4:00 PM sharp, he shuts his laptop and turns off his work phone. “That is not my problem,” he once replied with disarming honesty when Matylda asked if he could support an overloaded colleague. Legally speaking, Jacek was right.

Matylda is facing a dilemma. While Jacek performs his work correctly, she increasingly wonders if this way of working truly meets the company’s needs—and if someone else in Jacek’s position could contribute more to the team.

Does an Employee Actually Have an Obligation to Do More Than the “Bare Minimum”?

At first glance, the answer seems simple: if an employee performs their tasks correctly and on time, it is difficult to find fault. In practice, however, the matter is more nuanced.

Firstly, an employment contract is not just a closed checklist of tasks. It is also a commitment to act in the employer’s interest. Therefore, doing the “minimum” is not always sufficient.

An employee is obliged to perform their work conscientiously and diligently.

• Conscientiously – meaning with full engagement.
• Diligently – meaning reliably and with the maximum use of one’s skills.

The standards of conscientiousness and diligence apply to every employee, but they are not the same for everyone. Different things are expected of a junior intern than of an independent specialist or an experienced manager.

While a “junior” can primarily be expected to execute assigned tasks correctly, the catalog of expectations expands alongside the scope of autonomy. Beyond technical correctness and punctuality, factors such as initiative, engagement, teamwork skills, and flexibility become equally vital.

An employment contract is not just a to-do list.

Secondly, the assessment of diligence and conscientiousness is conducted in strict connection with the results of the employee’s work. In other words, an “attitude toward work” is one thing, but “effectiveness” is another entirely.

Therefore, even if an employer cannot legally demand heroism or constant “over-delivery,” they still have the right to evaluate the work in a broader context. This can translate into a conviction regarding how effective and useful the employee is and whether the firm wishes to continue the partnership.

Can You Fire an Employee Just for Doing Exactly What They Must—And No More?

If tasks are submitted on time and errors are non-existent, the decision to terminate the contract may seem risky. However, every employer has the right to freely shape their personnel policy. This means every firm can decide whom it employs to ensure it has the individuals best suited for the job.

“An employer may legitimately terminate an employment contract as part of the principle of selecting employees in a manner that ensures the best performance of tasks, if it can be anticipated that hiring new employees will allow for better performance results.” [Supreme Court Judgment of 02.09.1998, I PKN 271/98].

Employee evaluation is not limited to checking if all boxes were ticked. The employer also has the right to assess whether the manner of execution meets the organization’s needs.

The employer has the right to evaluate the specific manner in which duties are performed.

In other words, the firm has the right to decide if an employee is sufficiently—from the perspective of its needs—engaged, effective, and useful. If an employer concludes that an employee is fulfilling all duties but has poor results, and another person in the same position would achieve better outcomes, they may terminate the contract.

“An employer has the right to legitimately terminate the employment contract of an employee in an independent position in a situation where (even for reasons beyond their control) they do not achieve appropriate work results.” [Supreme Court Judgment of 20.01.2014, II PK 116/13].

The same applies if an employee is unresourceful, lacks engagement, or cannot work in a team—even if it isn’t the employee’s “fault.”

How to Prepare for Such a Decision?

The better a firm prepares for the dismissal of such an employee, the lower the risk of the case ending up in court. In this context, it is worth ensuring:

• Clear definition of expectations regarding the role.
• Open dialogue and feedback sessions.
• Setting specific goals and work standards.
• Monitoring performance results (e.g., via periodic appraisals).
• Explicitly indicating the areas where the employer expects change.

If, despite these actions, the employee does not change their approach, termination can be considered.

The key step will then be the proper formulation of the reason for termination. Simply stating that the employee “only did what they had to” will not suffice. The firm must clearly indicate which circumstances led to the conclusion that the employee is not the right fit for the role, referring to specific examples—for instance, showing that within the entire department, this employee is the least “productive,” even if they technically fulfill their duties.