1 labor dispute resolution bodies. System of bodies for consideration of labor disputes, their competence

After studying Chapter 4, the student should:

know

• types of bodies considering individual labor disputes and procedures for considering individual labor disputes;
• types of bodies considering collective labor disputes, and stages of conciliation procedures when considering collective labor disputes;
• legal status state bodies for the settlement of collective labor disputes;

be able to

• navigate the procedures for considering and resolving individual and collective labor disputes;
• determine the advantages and disadvantages of bodies considering labor disputes;

own

• the ability to choose the right procedure in the process of considering a specific labor dispute;
• skills in conducting conciliation procedures within the framework of a collective labor dispute.

Types of bodies considering individual labor disputes

Article 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that individual labor disputes are considered by the CCC and the courts. In addition, part 2 of Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation determines that the specifics of consideration of individual labor disputes are established by federal laws. These standards allow us to conclude that currently there are the following jurisdictional bodies authorized to consider and resolve individual labor disputes.

1. Labor Dispute Commissions. They are formed at the initiative of employees (a representative body of employees) and (or) the employer (organization, individual entrepreneur) from an equal number of representatives of employees and the employer. Representatives of employees are elected by a general meeting (conference) of employees or delegated by a representative body of employees with subsequent approval at a general meeting (conference) of employees, and representatives of the employer are appointed by the head of the organization, the employer - an individual entrepreneur.

According to Art. 385 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the CCC is a body for the consideration of individual labor disputes, with the exception of disputes for which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws establish a different procedure for their consideration.

2. Courts. Individual labor disputes as a court of first instance are authorized to be considered by district courts that are part of the federal court system, and until July 30, 2008, they could be considered by magistrates, who are judges of general jurisdiction of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The creation of the institution of justices of the peace was provided for by the Federal Constitutional Law of December 31, 1996 No. 1-FKZ “On the Judicial System Russian Federation". Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 188-FZ "On Magistrates in the Russian Federation" (as amended on July 18, 2011) provided that the magistrate considered in the first instance all cases arising from labor relations, for with the exception of cases of reinstatement and cases of resolution of collective labor disputes, as well as cases of issuing a court order.

Federal Law No. 147-FZ of July 22, 2008 “On Amendments to Article 3 of the Federal Law “On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation” and Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation” invalidated subparagraph. 7 clause 1 art. 3 of the Federal Law “On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation” and paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Art. 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, as a result of which cases arising from labor relations were excluded from the competence of the magistrate. The initiative to adopt this Federal Law came from Supreme Court RF. As the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation indicated in the explanatory note to draft law No. 147-FZ, civil cases arising from labor disputes “present a certain difficulty for magistrates due to the need to collect evidence.”

Initiating a change in the jurisdiction of cases arising from labor relations, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation took into account the presence of judges of district courts, which are less loaded with cases of labor relations than magistrates. administrative offenses, greater opportunities for preparing and considering this category of civil cases.

However, this category of civil cases is far from new for judges of district courts: they previously resolved labor disputes regarding reinstatement. District court judges have sufficient experience in analysis labor legislation and research of evidence, which should also have a positive impact on the quality of consideration of cases arising from labor relations.

As the main reasons for the adoption of Federal Law No. 147-FZ, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation named the increase in the workload of magistrates due to the increased volume of cases of administrative offenses considered by them; complex evidence base for cases arising from labor relations; complexity of applicable legislation.

So, at present, individual labor disputes as a court of first instance are authorized to consider only district courts.

In recent years, the following trend has clearly emerged: the court as an independent body is becoming the main body considering individual labor disputes state power, subject only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law. This is confirmed by statistical data on the number of labor cases considered by Russian courts in the first instance. Thus, in 2001, in Russia as a whole, the courts considered about 540 thousand labor cases, in 2002 - more than 630 thousand, in 2003 - about 660 thousand, in 2004 - more than 675 thousand, in 2005 - about 690 thousand, in 2006 - more than 725 thousand, in 2007 - about 740 thousand, in 2008 - more than 900 thousand, in 2009 - 2400 thousand, in 2010 – 2350 thousand labor cases.

The sharp increase in the number of individual labor disputes over the past three years is, of course, associated with crisis phenomena in the world economy in general and the Russian economy in particular, which were accompanied by numerous violations of labor rights and legitimate interests of domestic workers.

In recent years in science labor law opinions are expressed on the need to reform the judicial system and create labor courts.

Such statements are not accidental and are determined by government policy documents and law enforcement practice.

Thus, the Program of Social Reforms in the Russian Federation for the period 1996-2000, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 26, 1997 No. 222, provided for measures to protect the labor rights of citizens. It noted that "in lately the number of labor and other violations has increased significantly social rights citizens. Cases of illegal dismissals have become more frequent, late payments have become widespread wages and sending employees on forced unpaid leave. In many newly formed commercial organizations, labor relations are not formalized in the manner prescribed by law...", but "the main goals of the reform are the regulation of social and labor relations in the new conditions and the development of a system of state and public institutions for the protection of labor rights of citizens on the basis of modern regulatory legal framework."

The program envisaged reforms in the field of protecting the labor rights of citizens in two important areas: the adoption of a new Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the formation of a system of special bodies for the consideration of labor disputes, for which, at the first stage, it was planned to form structures for pre-trial consideration of labor disputes on a parity basis among social partners. The existing judicial authorities should form special panels of judicial workers who will consider and resolve individual and collective labor disputes.

In addition, the Program indicated that the allocation of special judicial panels and the organization of their work would require the development labor procedural code of the Russian Federation, providing for the involvement of representatives of the parties to labor relations in the consideration of cases (from employees and employers).

At the next stage, the Program was supposed to create specialized labor courts.

Unfortunately, the above provisions of the Social Reform Program have remained unimplemented.

It seems that the current adoption in Russia of the Labor Procedural Code of the Russian Federation will be premature and inconsistent. Labor cases, as one of the categories of civil cases, do not yet have the qualitative specificity that would allow them to stand out from the entire set of civil cases and apply special norms that differ from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation when considering and resolving them. It is impossible not to notice that a necessary condition for the adoption of the labor procedural code of the Russian Federation is the creation of a system of specialized labor courts. It is obvious that there are no economic, financial and organizational conditions. This situation is also affected by the fact that in the Russian Federation the system of social partnership is rather poorly developed, which presupposes a conciliatory procedure for resolving emerging disagreements.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation contains fundamentally new approach to the problem of the relationship between the competence of the CCC and the court. Previously, during the period of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, these commissions were, with rare exceptions, the mandatory primary body for the consideration of labor disputes. As is known, Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizes and guarantees as one of the fundamental rights of man and citizen to judicial protection of his rights and freedoms. Accordingly, submitting a labor dispute to the CCC for consideration has ceased to be a mandatory stage.

In reality labor dispute commissions By various reasons do not cope with the role assigned to them by law as an effective body for pre-trial consideration of labor disputes. There are several such reasons.

Firstly, a significant part of individual labor disputes are subject to consideration only in the courts (see Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Thus, in most labor disputes, the courts are the only, non-alternative bodies in which fairness in labor relations can be restored.

Secondly, in many organizations (individual entrepreneurs) CTS have not been created due to the lack of initiative of employees and (or) employer or small numbers personnel, and in such organizations (such individual entrepreneurs) violations of labor rights and legitimate interests of employees are allowed more often than in those where there are strong trade union organizations that can protect workers.

Thirdly, the incompetence of the members of the CCC is significant. They are not able to understand the complex issues of current labor legislation due to insufficient preparation to perform the functions assigned to them and, in particular, the lack of legal education and related practices.

Fourthly, decisions made by the CCC are often not executed by the employer voluntarily, since the commissions are not authoritative bodies for them, and bailiffs for various reasons refuse to enforce the decisions of the CCC, including in connection with gross violations of existing norms and rules consideration of cases and decision-making, missed deadlines for the issuance of executive documents by commissions or deadlines for presenting these documents for execution, etc.

As a result, the CCC is usually unable to prevent violations of labor laws, settle the matter amicably, or make a fair and reasonable decision and enforce it, i.e. They do not fulfill the task of pre-trial settlement of labor disputes. Since they have not proven themselves properly in practice and do not have advantages over the courts, there are almost no people willing to turn to their help when a conflict arises. In other words, these commissions, which carry the shortcomings of Soviet legislation, have not become and cannot become a jurisdictional body capable of freeing the courts from considering a significant part of labor cases.

Compared to the CCC, the quality of case consideration in courts is much higher. The following data can serve as evidence: over the past 10 years, no more than 1–1.5% of decisions of the courts of first instance in labor disputes have been overturned by higher courts annually.

Finally, with the entry into force of the Federal Law of July 27, 2010 No. 193-ΦZ “On an alternative dispute resolution procedure with the participation of a mediator (mediation procedure)” (hereinafter referred to as the Mediation Law), a a new way to resolve labor disputes – with the participation of an intermediary.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 2 of the Law on Mediation under mediation procedure refers to a method of resolving disputes with the assistance of a mediator based on the voluntary consent of the parties in order to achieve a mutually acceptable solution. The mediation procedure applies to disputes arising from civil legal relations, including in connection with the implementation of business and other economic activity, as well as disputes arising from labor and family legal relations.

It should be noted that by virtue of clause 5 of Art. 1 of the Law on Mediation, the mediation procedure does not apply to collective labor disputes.

According to paragraph 5 of Art. 2 of the Law on Mediation, the parties have the right to enter into an agreement on the use of the mediation procedure. The parties are entitled to include in the said agreement a condition under which the parties undertake not to go to court. However, this condition is traditionally recognized as invalid as aimed at limiting legal capacity. Nevertheless, in this case, the possibility of restriction is directly provided for by law and is therefore permissible (see paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

Such a condition can only exist within the framework of an agreement on the use of a mediation procedure. However, in practice, the parties will be able to include a clause limiting recourse to court in any contracts, covering it with an agreement on the use of the mediation procedure. This will create ample opportunities for abuse, especially in relationships where one of the parties is economically stronger and can “push” the inclusion of such a condition in the contract.

Let's imagine a situation: an employer enters into an agreement with an employee on the use of a mediation procedure and includes in it a condition that the parties undertake not to go to court during the period allotted for the mediation procedure. Next, the employer fires the employee, and the latter wants to challenge this illegal dismissal. The total duration of the mediation procedure is 60 days. The statute of limitations for claims for reinstatement is 1 month. The employer does not enter into an agreement to conduct a mediation procedure, so the limitation period is not suspended. Will the restriction on going to court apply in this case? It seems that no, otherwise the right to judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation will be violated.

In situations similar to the one described, the courts will most likely rely on the final provisions of paragraph 1 of Art. 4 of the Law on Mediation, according to which the condition of limiting recourse to court does not apply “if one of the parties needs, in its opinion, to protect its rights.”

Obviously, this wording should not be understood to mean that the effect of the condition on limiting recourse to court is made dependent on the discretion of either party. The condition will only not apply when its compliance jeopardizes the possibility of protecting the rights of one of the parties.

As a result of applying the mediation procedure to a dispute or disputes to individual disagreements in a dispute, a mediation agreement is concluded in writing (clause 7 of Article 2 of the Law on Mediation).

• General characteristics of labor law
  • Labor law as a branch of Russian law
  • Labor law and related areas of law
  • Labor law as a branch of legislation
  • Labor law system
• Subject and principles of labor law
  • Principles of labor law
  • Subject of labor law
  • Labor law methods
• Sources and system of labor law
  • Concept and types of sources of labor law
  • Labor legislation
  • Other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms
  • Effect of labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms
  • Contractual regulation of labor relations
• Subjects of labor relations
  • Subjects of labor law and subjects of labor relations
  • The employee as a subject of labor relations
  • Categories of workers
  • The employer as a subject of labor relations
  • Employer categories
• Social partnership in the sphere of labor
  • The concept and principles of social partnership. Participation of employees in the management of the organization
  • Levels and forms of social partnership
  • Social partnership parties
  • Social partnership bodies
  • Procedures in social partnership
  • Guarantees and compensation for persons participating in collective bargaining
• Grounds for the emergence of labor relations
  • Special grounds for conclusion employment contract
  • Election to office
  • Election by competition
  • Appointment to a position or confirmation to a position
  • Other grounds for concluding an employment contract
• Employment contract
  • The concept and meaning of an employment contract
  • Contents of the employment contract
  • Types of employment contracts
  • Student agreement
  • Parties to the employment contract, their rights and obligations
• Conclusion and amendment of an employment contract
  • The procedure for concluding employment contracts
  • Change of employment contract
  • Suspension from work
• Protection of employee personal data
  • Legal nature of the institution of protection of employee personal data
  • Processing of employee personal data and guarantees of their protection
  • Responsibility for violation of the rules governing the processing and protection of employee personal data
• Termination of an employment contract
  • Termination of an employment contract by agreement of the parties
  • Transfer of an employee at his request or with his consent to work for another employer or transfer to an elective job (position)
  • Expiration of the employment contract
  • Termination of an employment contract at one's own request
  • Termination of an employment contract due to the employee’s refusal to continue working when the owner of the organization’s property changes, the jurisdiction (subordination) of the organization changes, or its reorganization
  • Termination of an employment contract due to the employee’s refusal to continue working due to a change in the terms of the employment contract determined by the parties in the changed terms of the employment contract
  • Termination of an employment contract due to the employee’s refusal to transfer to another job, which is necessary for him in accordance with a medical report
  • Termination of an employment contract due to the employee’s refusal to be transferred to work in another location together with the employer
  • Grounds for dismissal on grounds related to the employee’s fault
  • Dismissal for reasons not related to the employee’s fault
  • Termination of an employment contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties
  • Termination of an employment contract for other reasons
• Working hours
  • Development of the “working time” institution
  • The concept of working time and its duration
  • Working outside the established working hours
  • Working hours
• Rest time
  • Concept and types of rest time
  • Vacation
  • Procedure for granting and using annual paid leave
• Remuneration
  • Socio-economic and legal content of wages
  • State guarantees for wages
  • Remuneration systems. Simulating achievements of high labor results
  • Remuneration for deviations from normal working conditions
• Labor discipline. Work schedule
  • The concept of labor discipline and its provision
  • Legal regulation labor regulations
  • Incentives and financial incentives
• Occupational safety
  • Concept of labor protection
  • Main directions of state policy in the field of labor protection. State regulatory requirements for labor protection
  • Responsibilities of the employer to ensure safe working conditions
  • Organization of labor protection
  • Ensuring workers' rights to labor protection
  • Investigation and recording of industrial accidents and occupational diseases
• Guarantees and compensation
  • The concept of guarantees and compensation. Guarantees of property and non-property nature
  • Guarantees when sending employees on business trips, others business trips and moving to work in another area
  • Guarantees and compensation to employees when they perform government or public duties
  • Guarantees and compensation for employees combining work with training
  • Other guarantees and compensation
• Peculiarities of labor regulation for certain categories of workers
  • Grounds for identifying certain categories of workers when establishing the specifics of legal regulation of their labor
  • Categories of workers that have differences in the legal regulation of their labor
• Peculiarities of work of women and persons with family responsibilities
  • Grounds for assigning women and persons with family responsibilities to a special category of workers
  • Guarantees for women in employment and termination of employment contracts
  • Guarantees for women and people with family responsibilities in the process of using their labor
  • Guarantees for women living in rural areas
• Peculiarities of labor regulation for workers under 18 years of age
  • Minor workers as a special category
  • Hiring and dismissing minor workers
  • Features of the use of minor labor
• Peculiarities of labor regulation for persons working in the Far North and equivalent areas
  • Persons working in the Far North and equivalent areas, as a special category of workers
  • Conclusion and termination of employment contracts with persons working in the Far North and equivalent areas. Compensation and guarantees
  • Peculiarities of regulation of wages for persons working in the Far North and equivalent areas
• Peculiarities of labor regulation for workers of certain professional groups
  • Transport workers
  • Teaching staff
  • Sports workers
  • Medical workers
• Labor disputes
  • Concept and types of labor disputes
  • Individual labor disputes
  • Alternative procedure for resolving individual labor disputes
  • Types and procedure for resolving collective labor disputes
• Protection of workers' labor rights
  • Self-defense of labor rights
  • State supervision and control over compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms
  • Protection of labor rights of workers by trade unions
• Offenses and liability in labor law
  • Labor offense
  • Disciplinary offense. Disciplinary responsibility
  • Responsibility of employers for violation of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms
• Material liability of the parties to the employment contract
  • Concept and signs financial liability
  • Financial liability of the employer to the employee
  • Financial liability of the employee to the employer
• Basics of labor law foreign countries
  • General characteristics of labor legislation of foreign countries
  • Institute of Social Partnership in Labor Law of Foreign Countries
  • Labor justice in foreign countries
• Model labor legislation of the CIS countries
  • General characteristics of model labor legislation of the CIS countries
  • Model concept Labor Code
  • Model law on labor protection
  • Model Law “On Social Partnership”
  • Agreements and collective agreements
  • Participation of employees in the management of the organization
  • Recommendatory legislative act “Migration labor resources in the CIS countries"

Individual labor disputes

An individual labor dispute is a disagreement (conflict) between an employee and an employer submitted to a labor dispute resolution body, related to the employee’s performance of his labor functions and not resolved in the usual manner. The subject of individual labor disputes can be various issues arising in the process labor activity: remuneration, provision of guaranteed benefits, provision of leave, imposition disciplinary action, recovery of damages, etc. These may be disputes regarding the application of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, collective agreement agreements, local regulations, employment contracts (including on the establishment or change of individual working conditions), etc. .d.

Individual labor disputes also include the so-called service disputes that arise in the state civil service. The legislative definition of an official dispute practically repeats the definition of an individual labor dispute set out in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Individual service dispute- these are unresolved disagreements between the employer’s representative and a civil servant or a citizen entering the civil service or previously in the civil service regarding the application of laws, other regulatory legal acts on the civil service and the service contract, which were reported to the body for the consideration of individual service disputes (Article 69 of the Federal Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation”). Based on this definition, the subject of an official dispute is disagreement regarding the application of regulatory legal acts on public service and service contract.

Subjects of individual labor disputes. From the concept of an individual labor dispute formulated in the law, it follows that one of its parties is the employer - an individual or legal entity (organization) that has entered into an employment relationship with an employee, or another entity endowed, in cases established by law, with the right to conclude employment contracts (h 2 Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The second - as a general rule - is the employee - individual who has entered into an employment relationship with the employer (Part 1 of Article 20 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). However, there are exceptions to this general rule for those cases when a dispute involving a person who previously had an employment relationship with the employer, as well as a person who has expressed a desire to conclude an employment contract with the employer, is referred to the body for the consideration of individual labor disputes, in the event of the employer’s refusal conclusion of such an agreement.

Bodies and procedure for considering individual labor disputes. Like any other legal dispute, labor disputes can be resolved in court. However, the specificity of labor disputes is that for their prompt consideration, labor dispute commissions (LCC) can be created. The initiative to create a labor dispute commission can be taken by both employees (a representative body of employees) and the employer (either an organization or an individual entrepreneur). The CCC consists of an equal number of employee representatives and employer representatives. Representatives of the employer to the labor dispute commission are appointed by the head of the organization (the employer - an individual entrepreneur). Employee representatives are elected by the general meeting (conference) of employees or delegated by the representative body of employees with subsequent approval at the general meeting (conference) of employees.

If an employee, independently or with the participation of his representative, has not resolved disagreements during direct negotiations with the employer, he has the right to determine to which body to send his application. An employee can apply to the CTS, observing the period established for such an opportunity - three months from the day when he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right (Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If the established deadline is missed for valid reasons, the CCC may restore it and resolve the dispute on the merits.

• employee - about reinstatement at work, regardless of the grounds for termination of the employment contract, about changing the date and wording of the reason for dismissal, about transferring to another job, about payment for forced absence or about payment of the difference in wages for the time of performing lower-paid work, about unlawful actions ( inaction) of the employer when processing and protecting the employee’s personal data:
• faces, job seeker from a given employer (potential employee), - about refusal to hire;
• persons working under an employment contract with employers - individuals who do not individual entrepreneurs, and workers religious organizations;
• persons who believe that they have been discriminated against;
• employer - in disputes regarding compensation for damage caused to him by an employee.

The procedure for considering a dispute in the CCC(Article 377 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). An employee’s application received by the labor dispute commission is subject to mandatory registration. Within 10 calendar days from the date the employee submits the application, the CCC is obliged to consider an individual labor dispute. The dispute is considered in the presence of the employee who filed the application or his authorized representative. Consideration of a dispute in the absence of the employee or his representative is permitted only upon a written application from the employee. If the employee (his representative) fails to appear at the CCC meeting, the consideration of the labor dispute is postponed. In the event of a second failure of the employee or his representative to appear without valid reasons, the commission may make a decision to withdraw the issue from consideration, which does not deprive the employee of the right to submit an application for consideration of the labor dispute again within a three-month period from the day when he learned or should have learned about the violation of his rights.

The Labor Dispute Commission has the right to call witnesses to the meeting and invite specialists. At the request of the commission, the employer (his representatives) is obliged to submit to it within the period established by the commission necessary documents. A meeting of the CCC is considered valid if at least half of the members representing employees and at least half of the members representing the employer are present.

The progress of the consideration of the dispute is recorded in a protocol, which is signed by the chairman of the commission or his deputy and certified by the seal of the commission. Decision-making by the Commission is carried out by secret ballot by a simple majority of votes of the members of the commission present at the meeting. Copies of the CCC decision, signed by the chairman of the commission or his deputy and certified by the seal of the commission, are handed over to the employee and employer or their representatives within three days from the date of the decision.

The mandatory execution of decisions of the CCC is ensured by law. First of all, the legislator established a specific deadline for their execution - within three days after the expiration of the ten days provided for appeal (Article 389 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In case of non-execution of the decision of the CCC, this commission has the right to issue a special document (certificate) that has the force of an executive document (Article 12 of the Federal Law of October 2, 2007 No. 229-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings”). Based on the certificate issued by the labor dispute commission and presented no later than three months from the date of its receipt, the bailiff enforces the decision of the labor dispute commission. An employee can apply for a certificate within one month from the date of the decision of the labor dispute commission. If an employee misses the specified period for valid reasons, this period may be restored upon his application.

Consideration of a labor dispute in court occurs in one of three cases if:

• the dispute was not considered by the labor dispute commission within ten days;
• the employee is not satisfied with the decision of the CCC and appealed it in court within ten days from the date of delivery of a copy of the commission’s decision;
• the dispute is included in the list of disputes considered directly in court (Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The courts consider individual labor disputes at the request of an employee, employer or trade union defending the interests of the employee, when they do not agree with the decision of the labor dispute commission or when the employee goes to court without going through the labor dispute commission, as well as at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the commission on labor disputes does not comply with labor legislation and other acts containing labor law norms.

Time limits for going to court for the resolution of an individual labor dispute are:

• for an employee - three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights, and in disputes about dismissal - one month from the date he was given a copy of the dismissal order or from the date of issue work book;
• for the employer (in disputes about compensation by the employee for damage caused to the employer) - one year from the date of discovery of the damage caused.

The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 2 of March 17, 2004 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” explained to the courts that if these deadlines are missed, the court can restore the right to file a claim, but only if there are valid reasons for this. Circumstances that prevented the to this employee timely file a claim with the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute (for example, the plaintiff is ill, is on a business trip, is unable to go to court due to force majeure, the need to care for seriously ill family members) (clause 5).

An important guarantee for workers when they go to court on claims arising from labor relations, including regarding non-fulfillment or improper fulfillment of the terms of an employment contract that are of a civil nature, is the exemption of workers from legal costs (Article 393 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 333.36 Tax Code of the Russian Federation). In addition, the law establishes a rule: the decision to reinstate an illegally dismissed employee, or to reinstate an employee illegally transferred to another job to his previous job, is subject to immediate execution (Article 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Lecture 8 Labor disputes

Labor disputes- these are disagreements that arise in enterprises, institutions, organizations between workers ( by a team of workers structural unit or the enterprise as a whole), on the one hand, and the employer, on the other, on issues related to the application of labor legislation, collective and labor agreements; internal labor rules, regulations, or the establishment of new or changes in existing working conditions.

The first category consists of claims-related disputes. The subject of such a dispute is the employee’s demand ( or groups of workers) on the restoration or recognition of individual labor rights, which ( actually or in his opinion) were violated by the employer. The party arguing with the employer is either an individual employee or several specific employees. For example, a dispute that arose between employees and the administration of an enterprise over non-payment of wages does not belong to the number of collective labor disputes regulated by the Federal Law “On the Procedure for Resolving Collective Labor Disputes” ( Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in case No. 48G96-7 of October 16, 1996).

Among the reasons that give rise to labor disputes are the following:

1. reasons of an organizational and legal nature. These include gaps in legislation, different interpretations of certain legal norms, etc.;

2. subjective reasons. The most common are the bureaucracy of enterprise managers, departmental interests, ignorance of labor legislation by both administration representatives and employees;

3. reasons of an organizational and economic nature ( shortcomings in the organization of work, the practice of material and moral incentives, the need to resolve socio-economic issues in production).

Individual labor disputes are considered in the general manner: 1. labor dispute commissions ( KTS). KTS- this is the primary body for the consideration of labor disputes at enterprises, institutions, organizations, with the exception of disputes for which a different procedure for their consideration has been established. The commission is elected by the general meeting ( conference) labor collective enterprises with at least 15 employees. Candidates for whom more than half of the employees present at the general meeting voted are considered elected to the CCC. The procedure for election, the number and composition of the CCC, and its term of office are determined by the general meeting. Next, the CCC elects a chairman, deputy chairman and secretary from among its members.

A labor dispute is considered by the CCC if, during negotiations with the administration, the employee was unable to resolve the disagreements that arose. The latter has the right to apply to the CCC within 3 months from the day when he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right. The employee's application is subject to mandatory registration.

The Labor Dispute Commission is obliged to consider a labor dispute within ten days. The dispute is considered in the presence of the employee who filed the application and representatives of the administration. Consideration of a dispute in the absence of an employee is allowed only upon his written application.

A meeting of the labor dispute commission is considered competent if at least half of its elected members are present.

At a meeting of the labor dispute commission, minutes are kept and signed by the chairman or deputy chairman of the commission.

The Labor Dispute Commission has the right to call witnesses to the meeting, invite specialists, representatives of trade unions and other public organizations. At the request of the commission, the administration of an enterprise, institution, organization ( divisions) is obliged to submit the necessary calculations and documents.

The labor dispute commission makes a decision by a majority vote of the commission members present at the meeting. The decision shall indicate: name of the enterprise, institution, organization ( divisions); last name, first name, patronymic of the employee who applied to the commission; date of application to the commission, date of consideration of the dispute, substance of the dispute; names of commission members, representatives of the administration and trade union committee present at the meeting; voting results and reasoned decision of the commission.

Copies of the commission’s decision are handed over to the employee and the enterprise administration within three days from the date the decision is made.

The decision of the labor dispute commission can be appealed by the interested employee or administration to the district ( urban) the court within ten days from the date of delivery of copies of the commission’s decision.

The decision of the CCC is subject to execution within 3 days after the expiration of 10 days provided for its appeal. In case of failure to comply with the decision within the prescribed period, the employee is issued a certificate that has the force of a writ of execution, which is enforced by a bailiff. The certificate is not issued if the employee or administration goes to court;

2. district ( urban) ships ( Art. 210-217 Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Directly in district ( urban) courts consider disputes regarding applications:

1. employees of enterprises where CTCs are not elected or for some reason not created;

2. workers for reinstatement at work, regardless of the grounds for termination of the employment contract ( contract);

3. administration for compensation by the employee for material damage exceeding his average monthly earnings.

Disputes regarding refusal to hire are also dealt with directly in the courts:

1. persons invited by way of transfer from another enterprise, institution, organization;

2. young specialists sent to work for this enterprise after graduating from a higher or secondary educational institution in the prescribed manner;

3. other persons with whom the administration, in accordance with the law, was obliged to conclude an employment contract ( contract). According to Art. 170 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is prohibited to refuse employment for reasons related to the presence of children, and for women also for reasons related to pregnancy.

As a second instance, district ( urban) courts consider labor disputes upon application:

1. an employee, administration or relevant trade union protecting the interests of an employee who is a member of this trade union when they do not agree with the decision of the labor dispute commission;

2. the prosecutor, if the decision of the labor dispute commission contradicts the law.

To apply for consideration of a labor dispute directly to the district ( urban) the court set the following deadlines:

1. in cases of dismissal - one month from the date of delivery of a copy of the order or work book to the employee;

2. in cases of recovery from employees of material damage caused to the enterprise - one year from the date of discovery of the damage caused.

An application for resolution of other categories of labor disputes is submitted to the district ( urban) the court within three months from the day the employee learned or should have learned about the violation of his right.

Labor disputes arising between an employee and an employer regarding the application of current labor legislation, collective agreements and other local regulations, as well as compliance with the terms of the employment contract, are considered by: commissions on labor disputes in organizations (Articles 382, ​​385 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation ); courts of general jurisdiction (Article 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation); magistrate of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); federal district court as a court of first instance (Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); district court as an appellate instance (Article 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); the relevant supreme court of the republic, regional, regional court, court of a federal city, court autonomous region, court Autonomous Okrug as a court of cassation to review a decision of a district court that has not entered into legal force (Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) or as a court of first instance; the presidium of the supreme court of a republic, a regional, regional court, a court of a federal city, a court of an autonomous region, a court of an autonomous district as a court of supervisory authority to review a decision of a district court that has entered into legal force, an appeal ruling of a district court, a ruling of a court of a republic, a regional court , court of a federal city, court of an autonomous region, court of an autonomous district (Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); other bodies not provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but determined in accordance with Article 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws (for example, disputes of certain categories of employees considered in a special manner). The procedure for considering individual labor disputes by other bodies not specified in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is not the object of study of this work.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of using a special procedure for pre-trial consideration of certain categories of labor disputes.

Chapter 60 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation has largely retained the practice-tested procedure for considering individual labor disputes with minor changes. In the science of labor law, proposals have long been made to establish a single jurisdiction for individual labor disputes, regardless of the nature of the dispute. This scientifically based proposal is enshrined in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, disputes about transfer to another job are currently not under the jurisdiction of the labor dispute commission, but are considered directly in court, as are disputes about dismissals, regardless of their grounds.

By jurisdiction we propose to understand the method and procedure for determining the body that should initially consider an individual labor dispute. The criteria for such a determination will be the basis of the dispute, the type and content of the violation (or alleged violation) of the rule established by the norm, the status of the employee and the employer, the fact that the organization has a CTS, and procedural deadlines.

The distribution of competence between the CCC and the court is such that the protection of employee rights in labor relations is primarily the responsibility of the CCC. The task of the CCC is the pre-trial resolution of an individual labor dispute within the jurisdiction of the CCC directly in the organization. The court is entrusted with the task of protecting the right itself under the employment contract and considering other labor disputes after or instead of the CCC or when there is no CCC.

Most individual labor disputes are considered either directly by the labor dispute commission, or sequentially passing through both stages: the CCC, then the court. This procedure is convenient in that disputes can be resolved directly in the organization, i.e. at the place of work, where evidence can be collected and assessed more quickly and easily.

Each jurisdictional body (CCC, court, higher body for disputes with alternative jurisdiction) is an independent body with its own procedure for considering labor disputes. Although the possibility of sequential consideration of a dispute, first in the CCC, then in court, is called in general, but each of these bodies has its own procedure, regulated differently by law.

The procedure for considering labor disputes in the CCC is regulated by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 383-390) and other federal laws. The procedure for considering labor disputes in court is determined by Art. 391-397 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, as well as civil procedural legislation. By other federal laws for the CCC and the court we mean laws that establish alternative jurisdiction for certain labor disputes, i.e. the employee decides where to go - to a higher authority or to the court.

From the point of view of a number of authors, it seems advisable to maintain the jurisdiction of labor disputes provided for by the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. They propose to regulate not only the law, but also the procedure for the CCC to make decisions to refuse to accept a dispute beyond its jurisdiction, with an explanation of the procedure for resolving it. In these cases, the employee must have the right to appeal the decision of the CCC, which denied him consideration of the application. The form of application to the CCC should be determined by law. It is necessary to simplify as much as possible the procedure for an employee to apply to the CCC, providing for the obligation of a CCC member to assist the employee in drawing up an application in terms of clarifying his requirements. When accepting applications from employees, it is advisable for members of the commission to conduct appropriate negotiations with the employee, identify the essence of the dispute, clarify the employee’s requirements, and in some cases help the applicant formulate them.

In my opinion, one should only partially agree with the above point of view. These provisions can be implemented only by those members of the CCC who are representatives of the employee. Moreover, in this case, such a member of the CCC should not participate in the consideration of the dispute in the commission. It is necessary to establish at the legal level a rule that prohibits a member of the CCC from representing the interests of an employee submitting an application for consideration by the commission.

Part 2 Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that the specifics of consideration of labor disputes of certain categories of workers are established by federal laws.

In accordance with Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for considering labor disputes is determined only by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. By-laws and laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation cannot change it. However, in practice, constituent entities of the Russian Federation pass laws that also establish alternative jurisdiction for labor disputes of municipal employees (the right to apply for resolution of labor disputes to local government bodies or to the court. This contradicts Part 2 of Article 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, although there is a different point of view . A.F. Nurtdinova believes that there is no contradiction in the legislation.

All individual labor disputes, according to their original jurisdiction, can be divided into the following groups: 1) considered in a general manner, starting with the CCC. This is how labor disputes arising from the employment relationship are considered. Other labor disputes derived from the labor legal relationship are not resolved in the general manner, since they are not within the jurisdiction of the CCC; 2) considered by a magistrate; 3) considered by the district court; 4) considered by a higher authority.

This is how the law determines jurisdictional bodies for individual labor disputes. But in general, a dispute between an employee and an employer is considered in the CCC, and then, at the initiative of one of the disputing parties, in court. Recently, alternative jurisdiction for some disputes has emerged and is expanding - at the choice of the plaintiff in court or in a higher authority. It follows from this that the CCC does not consider them. Since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not distinguish individual labor disputes regarding the establishment of new working conditions for an employee or the satisfaction of his legitimate interests into a separate group according to jurisdiction, they are considered in the same way as disputes regarding the application of labor legislation, i.e. disputes about law, in the same general order, starting with the CCC. The labor dispute commission shall consider those disagreements that develop into a labor dispute resolved by a jurisdictional body, i.e. if the employee, independently or with the participation of the trade union committee as a representative of his interests, has not resolved these disagreements during direct negotiations with the administration. Therefore, when accepting the application, the CCC must establish whether the employee tried to resolve the conflict directly with the employer and his representatives.

The Labor Dispute Commission cannot consider disputes within the jurisdiction of a court or a higher body, otherwise its decision will be illegal.

Article 384 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation changed the procedure for the formation of a commission on labor disputes that existed before 2002 (according to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If previously its members were elected by the general meeting (conference) of the labor collective, then in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the CCC is created at the initiative of workers and (or) the employer from an equal number of representatives of workers and employers, i.e. on a parity (equal) basis. In this case, representatives of employees in the CTS are elected by the general meeting (conference) of the organization’s employees or are delegated by the representative body of employees (trade committee) with their subsequent approval at the general meeting (conference) of the organization’s employees. Representatives of the employer are appointed to the CCC by order of the head of the organization. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation, unlike the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, does not provide for rules according to which labor unions are formed in all organizations with more than 15 employees. It seems that the mandatory creation of a CTS in organizations of all forms of ownership should be retained in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The existing procedure, in my opinion, violates the rules of jurisdiction and jurisdiction. The law must define the person(s) responsible for the formation of CTS in organizations. It seems that such a responsibility should be assigned to the employer. As long as this gap in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation remains, the very existence of the CCC institution as a body for resolving individual labor disputes in organizations becomes problematic.

Since labor legislation regulates the activities of the Labor Dispute Committee in the most general terms, it is advisable, at the level of a local regulatory act, to develop in the organization a Regulation on the Labor Dispute Commission, which should set out in detail the procedure for its organization and activities. In this case, preference should be given to issues of a procedural nature. The developers of such a document, as well as members of existing commissions, can also use the norms of civil procedural legislation. In any case, this kind of local regulatory act (in the absence of a labor procedural code) can be very useful for members of the CCC and parties to an individual labor dispute. Considering the particular relevance of issues related to the formation and activities of CTS in organizations, it seems necessary to propose to the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation to prepare an approximate regulation on CTS. It also seems necessary to organize the publication and free distribution of methodological and special legal literature to help members of the CCC in organizations. Many people need real support of this kind today. Russian citizens and organizations.

The presence of a CCC makes it possible to resolve most of the individual labor disputes that arise quickly and with high quality in the organization itself. In this case, the employer does not bear legal costs.

Participation in the CCC of legally educated citizens, the high efficiency of the activities of such CCCs is the prototype of a labor court as a special jurisdictional body for the consideration of individual labor disputes. The organization of such CCCs and the effectiveness of resolving labor disputes by them confirms the correctness of the thesis about the need to form labor courts.

For a more successful formation of the CCC, it is necessary to clarify some provisions in the current labor legislation. So, in accordance with Part 5 of Art. 384 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the labor dispute commission elects a chairman and secretary from among its members. This is not consistent with Part 6 of Art. 387 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since it also refers to the deputy chairman of the CCC.

By decision of the general meeting of the labor collective, CTS organizations can be formed in some of its structural divisions with a large number employees (or, for example, geographically distant from the central part of the organization). Labor dispute commissions of divisions are created from an equal number of representatives of the labor collective, elected by the general meeting of employees of the division, and representatives of the head of the division, appointed by his order (instruction). In particular, at the Novosibirsk enterprise OJSC Agrobios, a CTS unit (workshop) for the repair of refrigeration units has been created. The creation of a separate workshop by CTS in this case is justified by the fact that it is located at a fairly significant territorial distance from the parent organization in the village of Agroles, Iskitimsky district, Novosibirsk region.

The labor dispute commissions of the structural divisions of the organization operate in the same manner as the CCC of the central (head) organization for the consideration of labor disputes of employees of this division. Any disputing party can appeal its decisions to the court. Thus, in this case it is also observed general order sequential consideration of the dispute. In practice, there are two types of commissions for the consideration of labor disputes: “CTC of an organization” and “CTC of a structural unit of an organization.”

The labor dispute commissions of structural units can consider individual labor disputes within the powers of these units.

The elected representatives of employees to the CTS (including the CTS of a structural unit of the organization) are considered to be the employees who received the majority of votes and for whom more than half of the members of the labor collective present at the meeting voted, and at the conference - the conference delegates present. The law does not establish how many members of the labor collective (delegates to the conference) must be present at the general meeting for it to be competent to elect employee representatives to the CCC. Therefore it applies general rule holding meetings, i.e. it is competent to resolve issues when at least half of the members of the work collective (conference delegates) are present.

Each CTS has its own seal. For organizational and technical services of the commission on labor disputes (paperwork, storage of files, issuance of copies of decisions and extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Labor Dispute Committee), by order of the employer, a person is specially appointed permanent employee and that's part of it labor function. This employee registers incoming applications, notifies about the time of the CCC meeting, etc. Since the listed actions are within the scope of his labor responsibilities, then he can perform them during working hours.

An employee can appeal to the labor dispute commission; the law does not provide the employer with such a right.

An employee has the right to apply to the CCC within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. The labor dispute commission is obliged to accept the employee’s application submitted in compliance with the statute of limitations, register it and convene a meeting so that the consideration of the dispute takes place within ten days from the date of filing the application. If the deadline for applying to the CTS is missed, the employee’s application is accepted. At the same time, the commission finds out the reasons for missing the deadline. If they are valid, the CCC has the right to make a decision to restore the term and the dispute can be considered on its merits (Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). From the point of view of the science of labor law, this period is the claim period. The claim (limitation) period is the period of calendar time established by law for applying to the jurisdictional body for the protection of one’s labor rights or legitimate interests. Missing a claim deadline without good reason entails the loss of the right to protection in this body, therefore, the claim deadlines are considered as deadlines for the protection of the employee’s substantive labor rights. The law does not define which reasons are valid, leaving this to the discretion of the CCC. KTS practice considers such reasons to be the employee’s long-term illness, being on a business trip, vacation, etc. If the CCC, when deciding the issue of missing a claim deadline, recognizes it as missing without good reason, then it makes a decision to refuse to satisfy the employee’s claims. This decision of the CCC can be appealed to the court.

The issue of deadlines in labor legislation has been repeatedly raised by workers and their representatives before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The norms of parts one and three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as parts one and three of Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, establish essentially the same provisions on the time limits for applying to court to resolve an individual labor dispute. These norms established the same rules and the possibility of their restoration by the court in case of absence for valid reasons. In accordance with these norms, an application to resolve a labor dispute is submitted to a district (city) court or magistrate within three months from the day the employee learned or should have learned about the violation of his right, and in cases of dismissal - within a month from the day of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order or the day of issue of the work book. If the specified deadlines are missed for valid reasons, they can be restored by the court. Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes a similar period for applying to the CCC - three months from the day the employee learned or should have learned of a violation of his right.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly issued rulings in which the following legal position was expressed. Parts one and three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation correspond to the provision of Article 37 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the recognition of the right to individual and collective labor disputes using established federal law ways to resolve them and, in fact, regulate the conditions, procedure and timing of the implementation of this constitutional right. The monthly and three-month periods provided for in part one of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for going to court are aimed at quickly and effectively restoring the violated rights of an employee, including the right to work in cases of illegal termination of an employment contract by the employer, the right to protection from unemployment, as well as the right to timely payment. . The timeliness of going to court depends on the will of the employee. A deadline missed for valid reasons may be restored by the court or the CCC. In addition, by establishing a period of one month rather than a longer period for dismissal cases, the legislator took into account both the interests of the employer related to the selection of personnel and the interests of the new employee who occupied the controversial position and is subject to dismissal if the former employee’s claim for reinstatement is satisfied. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that part three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is aimed not at limiting, but at expanding the guarantees of judicial protection of the rights and interests of participants in labor disputes in the event that they miss good reason deadlines for applying to court to resolve a labor dispute. It equally protects the interests of both the employee and the employer, since both parties to the labor dispute are interested in the shortest possible time for its consideration (the employee - in order to be reinstated in his previous job, and the employer - in order to be able to hire a new employee). In this case, the decision of the CCC or the court to refuse to restore the missed deadline can be appealed.

In accordance with Art. 14 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation associates the emergence of labor rights and obligations begins with the calendar date that determines the beginning of the occurrence of these rights and obligations. The period of time with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation connects the termination of labor rights and obligations begins the next day after the calendar date that determines the end of the labor relationship. Terms calculated in years, months, weeks expire on the corresponding date of the last year, month or week of the term. The period calculated in calendar weeks or days also includes non-working days. If the last day of the period falls on a non-working day, then the end of the period is considered to be the next working day following it.

In accordance with Art. 387 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, consideration of a labor dispute in absentia is possible only upon a written application from the employee. He may indicate in the application that he requests that the labor dispute be considered in his absence. If an employee fails to appear at a commission meeting without good reason for the second time, the CCC may decide to withdraw his application from consideration. But this does not deprive the employee of the right to re-file a dispute if the three-month claim period has not been missed. If the employer's representative fails to appear, the CCC meeting is not postponed.

CCC meetings are held at non-working hours that are convenient for the employee concerned. The employee and employer are notified in advance about the time of consideration of the dispute. A meeting is considered competent to consider a labor dispute if at least half of the members from each party are present at it, moreover, they must sit in an equal number of representatives from each party.

The labor dispute commission should not copy the court. Witnesses in the dispute are not removed, their appearance is voluntary, and the commission resolves the dispute by deliberating and secretly voting directly in the meeting room in the presence of the employee and other persons. This ensures wide publicity and public control over the work of the CTS. A copy of the minutes of the CCC meeting is usually posted for review by members of the labor collective.

The minutes of the meeting of the CCC are kept by its secretary, and signed and sealed by the chairman of the CCC or his deputy.

The decision of the labor dispute commission shall indicate (Article 388 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation): the name of the organization (division), last name, first name, patronymic, position, profession or specialty of the employee who applied to the commission; dates of application to the commission and consideration of the dispute, the substance of the dispute; last names, first names, patronymics of commission members and other persons present at the meeting; the essence of the decision and its justification (with reference to the law, other regulatory legal act); voting results.

Duly certified copies of the decision of the labor dispute commission are handed over to the employee and the head of the organization within three days from the date of the decision.

The decision of the CCC must be motivated and justified, and contain references to the relevant labor law norms. The operative part of the decision is written in a binding form: refuse the applicant to satisfy the stated requirements, oblige the employer to pay such and such an amount to the employee, restore the employee to the previous production standards, etc.

The three-day period for delivering duly certified copies of the CCC decision to the employee and administration is a procedural period established by law. Only after receiving such a copy of the CCC decision can any of the disputing parties appeal it to the court.

The decision of the CCC is appealed by the employee or employer to the court within ten days from the date of delivery of copies of the commission’s decision. Missing the specified deadline is not grounds for refusing to accept the application. Having recognized the reasons for the absence as valid, the court may restore this period and consider the dispute on the merits.

The decision of the CCC is subject to execution within three days after the expiration of the ten days provided for appeal. In case of failure to comply with the commission’s decision within the prescribed period, the labor dispute commission issues the employee a certificate, which is an executive document. The certificate is not issued if the employee or employer applied within the prescribed period to transfer the labor dispute to the court. Based on the certificate issued by the labor dispute commission and presented no later than three months from the date of its receipt, the bailiff enforces the decision of the labor dispute commission. If an employee misses the established three-month period for good reasons, the labor dispute commission that issued the certificate may restore this period (Article 389 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Article 389 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation reflects one of the principles of the procedure for resolving labor disputes - ensuring the real restoration of the violated rights and legitimate interests of workers. This principle is expressed in the fact that if the employer voluntarily does not comply with the decision of the labor dispute body within the period established by law, then this decision is enforced through a bailiff.

The certificate, which has the force of an executive document, indicates: the name of the body that made the decision; dates of its acceptance and issuance of the certificate; last name, first name and patronymic of the employee; decision on the merits of the dispute. The certificate is certified by the signature of the chairman of the CCC (or his deputy) and the seal of the CCC.

The bailiff carries out his actions on the basis of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 No. 118-FZ “On Bailiffs”, as well as the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 No. 119-FZ “On Enforcement Proceedings”.

The magistrate, in accordance with Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, considers cases arising from labor relations, with the exception of cases of reinstatement at work and cases of resolution of collective labor disputes. Thus, the legislator defined the magistrate as the main body for the consideration of labor disputes. The magistrate considers in the first instance all disputes within the jurisdiction of the CCC in cases where the CCC has not been created in the organization or has not considered the employee’s application within 10 days (Article 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the employee, employer or trade union protecting the interests of the employee do not agree with the decision of the CCC, at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the CCC does not comply with the law (Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The district court of first instance can consider any individual labor disputes, with the exception of disputes considered by magistrates. Directly in the district court, in accordance with Art. 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, disputes about reinstatement at work are considered.

Due to the presence various organs and authorities considering individual labor disputes, the question arises whether the process of proceedings constitutes a single whole, regardless of which bodies and at what level are involved in making a decision, or whether there is an independent trial: on the one hand, in the CCC or higher bodies, and on the other hand, in the judicial authorities, as a result of which in the first case one should be guided by labor law, and in the second by civil procedure. To this question O.V. Smirnov answered as follows back in 1981: “since in many countries the judicial authorities, when considering labor disputes, are guided by the norms of civil procedural law, this seems to indicate that we are dealing with the second case. If we proceed from the fact that the concept of “civil process” has developed as opposed to the concept of “criminal process” and this means the participation of courts in the consideration of cases of a non-criminal nature, then one can hardly object to the above point of view, since labor disputes are not criminal cases. But upon examination this issue from the standpoint of the sectoral division of law, serious doubts arise regarding the correctness of the previous point of view, since it is hardly possible that the proceedings in labor cases are no different from civil ones.” The specifics of consideration of labor cases are determined by the sectoral characteristics of labor law.

Thus, the magistrate, the court considering labor cases, is a participant (subject) of labor proceedings and is obliged to act in the spirit of the basic principles of labor law, regardless of whether he acts as a justice body at first instance, that is, when the employee applied directly to court, bypassing the CCC, or considers a complaint against a decision of the CCC, when an employee, employer, prosecutor or representative trade union body go to court challenging the decision of the CCC.

The most important from the point of view of the procedure for considering an individual labor dispute are the principles of democracy in the process of considering labor disputes, free and accessible access of workers to the bodies considering labor disputes, as well as consistency, phasing, non-linearity of actions within each stage and speed of resolution of labor disputes, ensuring real restoration of violated labor rights.

A labor dispute resolved in the general manner by a labor dispute commission is subject to consideration by a court (magistrate): 1) at the request of the employee, employer or relevant trade union defending the interests of the employee when they do not agree with the decision of the Labor Committee; 2) at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the CCC is contrary to the law.

The list of disputes subject to judicial review without prior appeal to the CCC is given in Art. 391 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Such disputes include, first of all, labor disputes regarding rights that are of particular importance to the employee, as well as disputes, the consideration of which is associated with certain difficulties. These include disputes: about reinstatement at work, regardless of the grounds for termination of the employment contract; about transfer to another job; on changing the date and wording of the reason for dismissal; about payment for forced absence or performing lower-paid work; upon the employer’s application for compensation for material damage caused by the employee; about refusal to hire; persons who believe that they have been discriminated against; persons working under an employment contract with employers - individuals; persons working in an organization where CTS have not been created; employees of religious organizations (Article 348 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

It can be assumed that labor disputes between heads of organizations and members of collegial executive bodies of organizations should be resolved in court, since consideration of their disputes in the CCC is not possible due to special official position such persons.

Courts consider labor disputes in the manner of general jurisdiction according to the rules established for the consideration of civil cases in the court of first instance. This applies both to disputes that were not considered by the CCC, and to disputes previously considered by the commission.

The consideration in the court of first instance of a dispute previously resolved by the CCC does not affect the procedural ability of the parties to a labor dispute to appeal the decision of the magistrate to the appellate instance, the court decision to the cassation instance or by way of supervision. When appealing a court decision in cassation, the proceedings are carried out in accordance with the norms of civil procedural legislation.

With the introduction of the institution of magistrates, the consideration of labor disputes (with the exception of disputes about reinstatement at work) was also assigned to the competence of these bodies and enshrined in Art. 23 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Justices of the peace are not empowered to overturn a decision made by a labor dispute commission. An appeal against a decision of the CCC is the transfer of an individual labor dispute to a court.

Considering the existence of various bodies whose competence includes the protection of rights and interests protected by law, it is necessary to correctly and accurately delimit their powers in this area, which is what the institution of jurisdiction serves.

The multi-level and multi-tier nature of the system of courts of general jurisdiction necessitates the delimitation of jurisdictional powers, firstly, vertically, that is, between courts different levels and links of the judicial system (for example, between federal district courts and justices of the peace; between lower and higher federal courts); secondly, horizontally, that is, between courts of the same level, as well as within the same court. Horizontal division of jurisdictional powers occurs: 1) in the case of division of powers of similar courts of the same level; 2) in case of delimitation of jurisdictional powers between military and non-military courts; 3) in the case of differentiation of collegial and individual powers of the same court (military and non-military), authorized by law to consider a specific legal case at first instance.

So, the procedure for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction to consider and resolve legal cases within their jurisdiction is regulated by an institution of civil procedural law called jurisdiction. In this regard, jurisdiction is a set of civil procedural rules that establish the rules for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction.

Depending on the criterion for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction, two main types of jurisdiction are distinguished: generic (subject) and territorial (local). Generic jurisdiction is characterized by the fact that the criterion for delimiting the jurisdictional powers of courts and judges is the genus, type, category of cases. Territorial jurisdiction is determined on the basis of such criteria as place, territory.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to use another form of transferring an individual labor dispute to the court - by filing a statement of claim for the restoration of violated subjective rights if, within the established 10-day period, the labor dispute commission has not considered it on its merits. Provisions of Art. 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not determine the generic jurisdiction of an individual labor dispute transferred from the CCC to the judicial authorities.

According to Art. 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the claim is brought to the court at the place of residence of the defendant. A claim against an organization is filed in court at the location of the organization. If the employer is an individual, then the claim is filed in court at his place of residence. If a legal entity acts as an employer, the claim is brought at the location of the body of the legal entity (according to paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Civil Code, the location of the legal entity is the place of its state registration).

In accordance with Art. 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, jurisdiction is possible at the choice of the plaintiff: a claim against an organization arising from the activities of its branch or representative office can also be brought to the court at the location of its branch or representative office (clause 2 of Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); claims for restoration of labor rights can also be brought to the court at the plaintiff’s place of residence (clause 6 of article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); workers' claims for compensation for health damage caused to them in the performance of their job duties can be brought at the place where the harm was caused, as well as at the employee's place of residence (Clause 5, Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); workers' claims for restoration of labor rights can be brought at their place of residence.

The choice between several courts, which, according to Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, have jurisdiction over the case, belongs to the plaintiff (clause 10 of Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

It should be noted that the creation of the institution of magistrates in Russia does not solve the problem of bringing the consideration of a labor dispute closer to the location (place of residence) of the parties to the labor conflict. The content of labor disputes is very diverse. Therefore, the indication in the law that magistrates have jurisdiction over all disputes arising from labor relations, with the exception of cases of reinstatement, does not yet indicate clarity in the delimitation of jurisdiction between district courts and magistrates. Thus, it is not entirely clear which branch of the general court system should have jurisdiction over disputes that, although not containing demands for reinstatement, but which raise the question of the legality of termination of an employment contract (for example, changing the wording of the reasons for dismissal, collecting wages for the period of forced absence without reinstatement) or on forcing the employer to conclude an employment contract (for example, when challenging a refusal to hire). Disputes between magistrates and district courts regarding the jurisdiction of a number of cases arising from labor relations do not at all contribute to the timely and correct resolution of this category of cases. In addition, as a result, a significant number of labor cases within the jurisdiction of the magistrate become subject to resolution on the merits by the district court. This is due to the fact that the district court, being an appellate instance in relation to magistrates, considers cases on appeal in full using the procedure inherent in the court of first instance. And since decisions made in labor cases are often appealed to a higher court, a labor dispute, as a rule, is “doomed” to be reconsidered on the merits in a district court.

The current Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation does not clearly define the powers of the district court as an appellate authority when considering complaints or submissions from the prosecutor against the decisions of the magistrate. It is advisable to establish in procedural legislation the rules for considering such complaints and submitting them, as for cassation complaints. The consideration of the case must be collegial, and the limits for consideration of the case in the appellate court must be similar to those established by Article 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The plaintiff in the case is usually the employee whose rights have been violated. Due to the fact that labor legal personality begins at the age of 15, a minor employee can also be a plaintiff in the case.

The interests of the employer are represented in court by an authorized official of the employer. A power of attorney on behalf of the organization is issued signed by its head or another person authorized to do so. constituent documents of a person sealed with the seal of this organization (Part 3 of Article 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

When considering an individual labor dispute by a magistrate in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 3 of the Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 188-FZ “On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation,” a justice of the peace considers a labor dispute alone.

When considering an individual labor dispute in a federal court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (Article 7), civil cases in the courts of first instance are considered by the judges of these courts individually or, in cases provided for by federal law, collectively. If the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation grants a judge the right to single-handedly consider civil cases and perform certain procedural actions, he acts on behalf of the court. Cases of complaints against judicial decisions of magistrates that have not entered into legal force are considered on appeal alone by judges of the relevant district courts. Civil cases in the courts of cassation and supervisory instances are considered collegially.

In cases provided for by federal law, cases in the courts of first instance are considered collegially by three professional judges (Part 1 of Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Art. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge, within five days from the date of receipt of the statement of claim by the court, is obliged to consider the issue of accepting it for his proceedings. The judge issues a ruling on the acceptance of the application for court proceedings, on the basis of which a civil case is initiated in the court of first instance.

After accepting the application, the judge makes a ruling on preparing the case for trial and indicates the actions that should be taken by the parties, other persons involved in the case, and the timing of these actions to ensure the correct and timely consideration and resolution of the case. Preparation for trial is mandatory for every civil case and is carried out by a judge with the participation of the parties, other persons participating in the case, and their representatives (Article 147 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

An individual labor dispute about reinstatement at work must be considered and resolved before the expiration of a month from the date the application was accepted for proceedings (Part 2 of Article 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

When going to court to resolve a labor dispute, the parties should keep in mind that the court may simultaneously consider the employee’s claim for reinstatement and the employer’s complaint against the order. state inspection labor on the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee (Article 373 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Each employee or representative of the trade union committee can receive free legal assistance in the event of a labor dispute in legal advice trade union bodies.

During the consideration of a labor dispute in court, the parties can enter into a settlement agreement. The conditions under which the parties reached a settlement agreement must be reflected in the minutes of the court hearing and signed by the parties. A settlement agreement cannot be approved if it in any way infringes on the employee’s labor rights or, in circumvention of the law, is aimed at releasing the relevant persons from financial liability. By concluding a settlement agreement in court, the parties do not have the right to change the amount of compensation for harm caused to the employee’s health in the performance of work duties.

A dispute that has arisen between the parties can be eliminated (settled) voluntarily by their amicable agreement and without going to court. The content of such an agreement varies. It is often expressed in temporary concessions by the parties while maintaining the legal relationship; it may consist of an agreed upon clarification and clarification of the terms of the legal relationship, which were interpreted differently by the parties and therefore gave rise to disagreements in its implementation.

In all these cases, regardless of whether such an agreement is aimed at changing the legal relationship (transformative action) or at confirming it (declaratory action), the parties undertake to consider the legal relationship existing between them in the form as provided for in the agreement (constitutive action), and be guided by them in their behavior (regulatory action). Therefore, the settlement agreement concluded by the parties in the specified content is a transaction, in this case, an agreement in civil law.

A settlement agreement concluded without going to court is out of court. An out-of-court settlement agreement (contract), if one of the parties evades its execution and the other goes to court, will be one of the circumstances of the case.

An agreement can also be reached outside of court on a dispute for which a civil case has been initiated in court. Such an agreement acquires legal significance only after its approval by the court.

Certification and approval by the court of a settlement agreement are necessary conditions to give them legal significance. Without them, such an agreement cannot be considered complete and valid.

Thus, a judicial settlement agreement is a deal concluded by the parties during the consideration of the case and approved by the court, according to which the plaintiff and defendant, through mutual concessions, redefine their rights and obligations and terminate the legal dispute that has arisen between them. The new rules of legal relations between the parties established by this agreement are binding, and they must be guided by them in their behavior.

A judicial settlement agreement can only be concluded between the parties and, therefore, cannot be entered into by other parties involved in the case (third parties without independent claims, the prosecutor, etc.). Before approving a settlement agreement, the court is obliged, with the participation of the parties, to carefully check whether it is legal and whether it does not violate anyone’s rights or interests protected by law (Part 2 of Article 39, Article 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

A settlement agreement drawn up by the parties in the form independent document, is attached by the court to the case. Special significance such registration is acquired during the consideration of the case in the cassation and supervisory authorities.

A court settlement agreement must meet certain requirements:

a) as a civil transaction, a judicial settlement agreement is subject to the rules civil law. A settlement agreement that suffers from at least one of the defects with which the law associates the invalidity of a transaction (Articles 168-179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) cannot be approved by the court;

b) the purpose of a judicial settlement agreement is the final elimination of the dispute between the parties, which is associated with the requirements for clarity of the content of the settlement agreement, complete certainty and unconditionality of the rights and obligations of the parties established by the agreement.

The terms of a settlement agreement approved by a court ruling must be set out clearly and definitely, so that there are no ambiguities or disputes regarding its content during execution.

Once the court’s ruling to terminate proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement approved by it enters into legal force, the possibility of a second appeal to the court with the same claim is excluded (paragraph 5 of Article 220, Article 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

A settlement agreement between the parties is one of the forms of free settlement of a dispute by the parties without the use of government coercion. The court must take the initiative in reconciling the parties. The possibility of resolving the dispute by amicable agreement should be clarified by the judge in the process of preparing the case for trial, at the beginning of the court hearing in the court of first, appellate and cassation instances (Articles 172, 327, 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

If the settlement agreement is not executed voluntarily, it will be enforced.

The growing trend in the number of labor disputes considered in the courts allows us to conclude that after the entry into force of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the number of such cases and their complexity are increasing. The legislator and the judiciary are faced with the need to create a Labor Procedural Code (LPC) and special courts to resolve labor disputes.

While the adoption of the TPC, taking into account the novelty of this major normative act, will undoubtedly require considerable time, the creation of a specialized unit of the judicial system can be carried out in a relatively short time.

The procedure for considering a labor dispute is the form of the proceedings established for a given jurisdictional body, starting with the acceptance of an application and ending with the making of a decision on the case.

It is necessary to distinguish between the procedure for considering individual labor disputes in the CCC, the court and a higher authority. All these bodies can carry out law-restoring actions, but in different ways.

Most disputes from labor relations regarding the application of labor legislation are considered in the general manner, starting with the CCC, and if the CCC has not considered the dispute within 10 days, the employee has the right to refer it to a court decision. The decision of the CCC can be appealed by any disputing party in court. This general procedure is established by Art. 390 of the Labor Code, and for the court - also of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The Labor Dispute Commission is a body of the labor collective. CTS in all organizations at the initiative of workers and (or) the employer on a parity basis from representatives of these parties. Employee representatives are elected by the general meeting (conference) of the labor collective by secret or open voting (at the discretion of the meeting or conference).

The formation of a CCC division is not necessary, but when they are created, the dispute, after consideration by such a CCC, can be transferred by any disputing party to the court.

A labor dispute is subject to consideration by the CCC if the employee, independently or with the participation of his representative, does not resolve disagreements during direct negotiations with the employer. If the three-month claim period is missed for a good reason, the CCC may restore it. The employee’s application is subject to mandatory registration in the application receipt register, which notes the date of receipt and consideration of the dispute, its content and resolution. For organizational and technical maintenance of the CTS (paperwork, file storage, issuance of extracts from minutes of meetings), a special permanent employee is appointed by order of the employer, as a rule, without specifying the duration of work.

The procedure for considering labor disputes in the CCC is extremely democratic. The dispute is considered at a convenient non-working time and always in the presence of the applicant employee. Dispute consideration in absentia is permitted only upon a written application from the employee. If an employee fails to appear at a commission meeting for the second time without good reason, the CCC may decide to withdraw the application from consideration, which does not deprive the employee of the right to submit an application again.

The case must be prepared for the meeting by the chairman or, on his behalf, by a member of the CCC: the necessary witnesses in the case are called and, if necessary, a technical and accounting check is carried out by the relevant persons, and the relevant documents and calculations are also requested from the employer. The employer is obliged to submit them at the request of the CTS.

The legislation does not precisely define the procedure for holding a meeting of the CCC, and although it does not indicate the right of challenge, it does not prohibit it either. Therefore, the applicant and the employer have the right to make a reasoned challenge to any member of the commission at the beginning of the CCC meeting. The issue of recusal is decided by a majority of the members of the CCC present. A meeting of the CCC is considered competent if at least half of each party’s members of the commission are present at it, and in an equal number of representatives of employees and the employer.

The CCC should not copy the court, and witnesses can be present at the commission's meeting from beginning to end. The meeting of the commission is held openly, anyone can attend it, and anyone can be heard on the circumstances of the dispute. The decision of the CCC is made by secret ballot.

A decision is considered adopted if a majority of the commission members present at the meeting vote for it.

The commission's decision shall indicate: the full name of the organization, last name, first name and patronymic, profession, specialty, position of the applicant, the date of application to the CCC and the date of consideration of the dispute, the substance of the dispute, the names of the commission members present at the CCC meeting, representatives of the employer and the trade union, voting results and a decision reasoned with reference to the rule of law. The CCC may indicate in its decision its immediate execution or within a period specified by it. The decision of the CCC, as a rule, has a motivational and operative part. The operative part of the decision must be written in a categorical, imperative form, for example: “offer the employer to pay such and such an amount.” Decisions made The CTS does not require subsequent approval and can be executed immediately. The commission does not have the right to revise them, but can make additional solution, if, for example, the amount was not precisely determined. The minutes of the meeting of the CCC must be signed by the chairman or his deputy and certified with the seal of the CCC. Based on it, the employee on whom the employer has entrusted maintenance The CCC, within three days from the date of the decision, must deliver duly certified copies of the CCC decision to the interested employee and the employer.

The decision of the CCC can be appealed by the employee or employer in court within 10 days from the date of delivery of a copy of the decision to them. Missing this deadline is not grounds for the court to refuse to accept the application. The court at a meeting can restore it if the deadline is missed for a good reason, and consider the dispute on the merits.

The procedure for considering labor disputes in court is determined by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. The role of the court in the field of labor relations is significant. One of the most important guarantees for the protection of labor rights of Russian citizens is their right to judicial protection in accordance with Art. 37 and 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The courts not only restore violated labor rights, but also identify the causes and conditions of these violations and carry out preventive work to eliminate and prevent them. The court may make representations to government bodies, public organizations and officials to eliminate violations of the law, causes and conditions conducive to violations.

When considering labor disputes, the court is guided by both the norms of labor law and the norms of civil procedural law and the guiding decisions of the Supreme Court in labor cases.

The competence and authority of the court in the field of labor disputes is determined not only by the range of disputes within the jurisdiction of the court, but also by the fact that when considering a dispute, the court can, on its own initiative, bring to the side of the defendant a third party guilty of a gross violation of labor legislation, and recover from him material damage , incurred by the employer (Article 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure). If, during the consideration of the case, the court establishes incorrect actions officials, indicating a gross violation of labor legislation, he must, in accordance with Art. 225 of the Civil Procedure Code to issue a special ruling to bring the guilty managers to disciplinary, and in appropriate cases, to criminal liability. These private determinations are sent to the relevant authority, which must inform the court within a month about the measures taken.

When accepting an application for a labor dispute, the judge must correctly determine the jurisdiction of the court of this dispute. He alone decides the issue of accepting or refusing to accept an application for consideration in accordance with Art. 129 Code of Civil Procedure.

All labor disputes are considered in court at the location of the defendant.

For an employer to file a claim against an employee in court for compensation for material damage caused by him to the organization, a period of one year is established from the date of discovery of the damage; for disputes that were considered in the CCC - a 10-day period from the date of delivery of a copy of the commission’s decision; for cases of dismissal - one month from the day he was fired; for other labor disputes and in court - a three-month claim period.

A judge’s refusal to accept an application for reasons of substantive law, in particular due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, is illegal. The issue of missing the statute of limitations must be decided by the court at a court hearing when considering the dispute. The law does not define what reasons are considered valid for reinstating the statute of limitations. This is decided by the court itself. If the reasons for missing the limitation period are recognized as valid, the violated right is subject to protection.

A special feature of the consideration of labor disputes in court is that not only the interested employee and the employer, but also the prosecutor (Article 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure), as well as the trade union, have the right to initiate labor cases in court.

If the employee’s claim is satisfied, then legal costs, including state fees, are recovered from the defendant. If an employee’s claim is denied, legal costs will not be recovered from either party. If the plaintiff is the employer, legal costs are recovered from him (in a dispute over the employee’s financial liability).

Any party can appeal court decisions to a higher court within 10 days (Article 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure). Within the same period, it can be appealed by the prosecutor. Those who miss this deadline are deprived of the right to file a complaint. But if there is a good reason for missing the deadline, the court may reinstate it. A higher court in cassation has the right to uphold the court decision, change or cancel it in whole or in part. By canceling a court decision, a higher court may refer the case for a new trial to the same court in a different or the same composition, or itself make a new decision on the merits of the dispute (Article 305 of the Code of Civil Procedure), or dismiss the case, or leave the claim without consideration. If the court decision is overturned on cassation appeal, then the issue of repayment of the paid amounts in the order of reversal of execution is resolved by the court in all cases. This reverse recovery is carried out only by court decision.

Decisions, rulings and rulings of courts that have entered into legal force may be reviewed in the manner of supervision based on relevant protests. If a court decision is canceled by way of supervision, then from the worker who received certain amounts under this decision, these amounts are not recovered, except in cases where the court decision was based on forged documents or false information provided by the plaintiff.