The "Disappearance" of Unused Vacation Days — Myth or Reality?!
06-08-2026 1
The "Disappearance" of Unused Vacation Days — Myth or Reality?!- The issue of vacation days and their purpose is one of the fundamental matters in the Organic Law of Georgia, the Labor Code. The basis for this is found in the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Constitution of Georgia, which states that "labor rights are protected by organic law." By its nature, a vacation means that an employee is granted the right (and not the obligation) to use their accrued leave. Furthermore, labor rights cannot and will not be isolated from other rights, but their distinctiveness lies precisely in the fact that, just as a person has the right to work and/or the right to be unemployed, they also have the right to rest from work;
- The topic of vacations always becomes highly relevant during the summer and pre-New Year periods. Existing practice and the majority of employers consider that vacation days "disappear" at the end of the year, which is categorically not only unacceptable but also inconceivable in the legal sphere, especially if this is claimed by a lawyer and/or the so-called HR (Human Resources) department. The truth resides in an entirely different dimension, and this truth denies the disappearance of vacation days, just as it is impossible for anything to simply disappear without a trace in law;
- Reference to Vacation Days in the Labor Code – Article 31.1 of the Labor Code refers to the number of paid vacation days during the period of employment and defines it as no less than 24 working days. It is noteworthy that the law does not specify whether this day is a calendar day, an employee's working day, or an employer's working day, although this is a separate matter for dispute. Consequently, 24 working days is the minimum, but by agreement of the parties, it can be 34 or even 44 days.
- Guaranteeing Vacation Days – Article 31.6 of the same code states that "a condition of an employment contract by which the right to enjoy an annual paid vacation is waived or denied shall be void." Accordingly, any record that contradicts the right to vacation days (where "waiver" implies its denial in any form) is void. This applies not only to the employment contract itself but also encompasses internal labor regulations, employer's orders, etc.
- Rules for Using Vacation Days – The right to use a vacation arises for the employee 11 months after employment. At the same time, the law does not preclude that if the parties agree, the employee may use a vacation day after 1 week, 1 month, or 6 months. It may also be used in parts by the employee, or the employer may determine the schedule for its provision.
- These explanations are somewhat superficial indications because each of these issues requires a deep legal analysis regarding specific cases. For example, during a 1-year employment contract, if a party requests a vacation after 11 months, what should the employer do? Will the employee use it and then work for another month? And/or if a person works, for example, one day out of four, how many calendar days are they entitled to? There are different methods of interpretation: some point to 28 calendar days (the sum of 4 weeks); one interpretation considers it possible that vacation days should be tied to the employee's working day, multiplying every fourth day by the working day (4*24=96) to get that many calendar days. However, the latter interpretation has its own illogic, because it implies that a party could use vacation days for more than 3 months, etc. But I mention this because the purpose or interpretation of the Labor Code is not merely a dry citation of norms; explaining it is more important than dry analysis;
- Exceptional Cases for Postponing Vacations – Individuals who argue that something in the law or the Labor Code can disappear, including vacation days, appeal precisely to this article, namely Article 35. Generally, any law has its purpose; it must regulate existing and/or future relations. The purpose of the Labor Code is not to make the employer a "king" or the employee the employer's boss. The entire essence of the labor code is to ensure fair rules of the game that are acceptable to both parties.
- These rules should not "oppress" either party. The law is characterized by a desire to equalize things, and the labor code is no exception. Among civil law contracts, the employment contract is an exceptional one because it involves being in a state of "subordination." The law considers that it must equalize certain aspects by direct mandate. For instance, the indication that an action is prohibited implies invalidity (the prohibition of denying vacation days).
- Article 35 of the Code is divided into two parts (Article 35.1: If granting paid leave to an employee in the current year may negatively affect the normal course of the work process, it is permissible to postpone the leave to the following year with the employee's consent. Postponement of a minor's paid leave to the following year is prohibited. Article 35.2: It is prohibited to postpone paid leave to the following year for 2 consecutive years). Each term indicated in the article has its purpose and must be interpreted as characteristic of the Labor Code, applying the "rules of fair play."
- “If for the employee” – It is clear who the employee is: the person who is employed. It is noteworthy that the norm uses the word "if," which is used when a choice is to be made.
“Granting paid leave in the current year” – The law directly indicates that the right to a vacation is the employee's inalienable right, but as an exception, it notes that if this concerns an employee whose leave would cause difficulties. This difficulty is not a subjective factor of the employer; simply put, it applies if the employee is indispensable.
“May negatively affect the normal course of the work process” – Furthermore, granting a vacation to the employee harms not only the employer but also other employees.
“With the employee’s consent” – The law directly and explicitly points to consent. The simplest form is the employee's written consent, but even in this case, the law requires the employee to agree, rather than leaving it to the employer's discretion.
“It is permissible” – Permissibility means that it is acceptable if the employee agrees.
“Postponement of the leave to the following year” – The law indicates that a postponement to the future year is possible, but nowhere is it written that it disappears or vanishes without a trace. Postponement is possible if the production process, the interests of other employees, and, most importantly, the employee themselves agree to it.
“Postponement of a minor’s paid leave to the following year is prohibited” – The reference to a minor is self-explanatory.
“It is prohibited” – The second part of the article directly and explicitly indicates that it is not allowed, is invalid, is inadmissible; simply put, it "won't pass."
“Paid leave” – This implies the vacation itself.
“Postponement to the following year for 2 consecutive years” – Here, the law indicates that even if the employee's consent exists, the employee cannot be denied the use of their vacation for 2 consecutive years. - From beginning to end, the article is aimed at protecting the employee's rights. The norm ensures the protection of the employee, and the word "prohibited" is directed not at the employee but at the employer; the subject of the article is the employer. The Labor Code attempts to provide the parties with fair rules of play and, as is characteristic of it, prohibits employer arbitrariness through direct intervention.
- As is often characteristic of the so-called Georgian business sector, this is interpreted by them in the following way: if a party does not request or cannot fully use the 24 days of vacation (for example, used 8 days out of 24), then these vacation days do not carry over to the next year. This is an inconceivable legal dictate against the employee. Moreover, the norm of the article prohibits the employer from postponing the vacation (and this article is an exception), but it does not prohibit the existence of vacation days. In one discussion, I encountered the argument that because the law does not explicitly state that they "do not disappear," it implies that vacation days do disappear. This is an incredible legal absurdity, because if they were to disappear, it should be explicitly stated in the law, and not the other way around.
- It is significant that Article 31.5 of the same code states: "Upon termination of an employment contract on the initiative of the employer, the employer is obliged to pay the employee compensation for unused vacation in proportion to the duration of the employment relationship." For example, if a person worked for 4 years and was unable to use, say, 7 days each year, and if the employer terminated the employment contract, do the "disappeared" vacation days come back to life? If they disappear, then how does the law oblige the employer to revive them? Naturally, this defies legal logic.
- There is a more complex issue, which is as follows: for example, Article 74 of the Labor Code states that "A person has the right, in addition to the lawsuit provided for in Article 48 of this Law, to apply to the court with another lawsuit arising from this Law within 1 year after they learned or should have learned about the violation of the right." Article 48 concerns the dismissal of an employee. As for the rest, this article indicates that the limitation period should be calculated from when the person learned or should have learned.
- In general, this provision of the code itself is highly debatable because, firstly, it reduces the statute of limitations as a special law, but its all-encompassing nature ("another lawsuit") cannot withstand criticism since "another lawsuit" could be any claim, ranging from a statutory penalty to vacation days. Here, too, legal logic is lost: if, on the one hand, in the event of an employee's dismissal, unused vacation days must be paid proportionally, then if this claim did not exist outside of this article, it could not be paid. Furthermore, this article locks claims within a statute of limitations, but the main question is: all claims? If so, other questions arise:
- From which day of an unused vacation does the 1 year start?
How should the notification of a rights violation be interpreted? When the employee knows they have remaining vacation days, but the employer simply "erased" them without notifying the employee, yet assumes so...
What does a rights violation mean? A rights violation implies a bilateral action or inaction. If the non-use of a vacation is a bilateral action, how does the law establish a rights violation?
Does the cancellation of vacation days serve the employee's interest? And what interest is that? - However, even if a 1-year limitation period is considered, it cannot in any case apply to the cancellation of vacation days, as this period is for initiating lawsuit proceedings and not for the claim of vacation days itself. For example, if a person did not use 14 vacation days for 2 years and subsequently requested them and received a refusal, would the one-year limitation period be calculated from the receipt of the refusal?!
Also, in such a case, a 1-year period would need to be established for each individual employee (from the start and end of their work) and each must be monitored separately, not everyone all at once. For example, if a person worked for 5 years and in the sixth year requested to use unused vacations—on the one hand, it cannot be less than 24 days, but if used entirely (say it would be 70 days), the employer will refuse. Does this 1-year period arise from this precise moment? - And must the employee apply to the court with a lawsuit to use a vacation day when court proceedings can drag on for 5 years? In general, how should a lawsuit for the use of a vacation day be enforced as an action for specific performance?!
Overall and in general, law is everyone's business; law is also humanitarian logic where 2+2=4. What is illogical means it is unjust. Furthermore, the law in the Labor Code follows this exact idea when it states that if vacation days disappear, it contradicts Article 1.3 of the Labor Code, specifically: "An employment contract may not define norms different from those provided for by this Law which worsen the condition of the employee." - Because the so-called disappearance of vacation days worsens the condition of the employee, accordingly, even in the worst-case scenario, the disappearance of vacation days equates to the disappearance of the humanitarian logic of 2+2=4. It leads to an illogic that has neither a fair nor a legal basis. There is no such thing as the disappearance of unused vacation days in the Labor Code.
- 📲 Attorney Guram Kontuadze 📧 guram.kontuadze@gmail.com
Tel/Viber/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +995 591 976 764; facebook;ადვოკატი გლდანში ადვოკატი ვაკეში ადვოკატი ვერაზე ადვოკატი ციხეზე ადვოკატი წალკაში ადვოკატი საბურთალოზე ადვოკატი ვარკეთილში ადვოკატი ახალ რუსთავში ადვოკატი ახალ რუსთავში ადვოკატი დმანისში ადვოკატი ბოლნისში ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში ადვოკატი მიწის სამოქალაქოს ადვოკატი საადვოკატო მომსახურება თბილისში საადვოკატო მომსახურება საქართველოში საადვოკატო მომსახურება რუსთავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება თელავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება მარნეულში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ქუთაისში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ბათუმში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ბათუმში საადვოკატო მომსახურება საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ახალ რუსთავში საადვოკატო მომსახურება ახალ რუსთავში იურისტი ახალ რუსთავში იურისტი დმანისში იურისტი თბილისში იურისტი საქართველოში იურისტი რუსთავში იურისტი ბათუმში იურისტი ქუთაისში იურისტი ზუგდიდში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი სისხლის სამართლის ადვოკატი ადმინისტრაციული სამართლის ადვოკატი მიწის საკითხებზე მომუშავე ადვოკატი ადვოკატი სამოქალაქო საკითხებში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი რუსთავში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი მარნეულში სამოქალაქო საქმის ადვოკატი თელავში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი რუსთავში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი მარნეულში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი მარნეულში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში ადმინისტრაციული საქმის ადვოკატი მარნეულში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი საქართველოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი რუსთავში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი მარნეულში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი თბილისში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი ბათუმში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი საგარეჯოში სისხლის სამართლის საქმის ადვოკატი ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო ბიურო თბილისში საადვოკატო ბიურო საქართველოში საადვოკატო ბიურო რუსთავში საადვოკატო ბიურო ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო ბიურო საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო ბიურო თბილისში საადვოკატო ბიურო საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო ბიურო ბათუმში საადვოკატო ბიურო საგარეჯოში საადვოკატო ბიურო ზუგდიდში საადვოკატო ბიურო მარნეულში საადვოკატო ბიურო თელავში advokati tbilisshi advokati rustavshi advokati saqartveloshi advokati bolnisshi advokati marneulshi advokati qutaisshi advokati zugdidshi advokati walkashi advikati marneulshi advokati marneulshi advokati dmanisshi advokati bolnisshi advokati telavshi sisxlis samartlis advokati samoqalaqo samartlis advokati administraciuli samartlis advokati адвокат в Тбилиси адвокат в Грузии Адвокат в Рустави Адвокат в Батуми Адвокат в Ваке Адвокат в Телави Адвокат по гражданским делам iuristi tbilisshi iuristi saqartveloshi sasamartlos iuristi sasamartlo advokati სასამართლო ადვოკატი ადვოკატი სასამრთლოში