The actual admission of the employee to work. Actual admission to work - the employer is obliged to conclude an employment contract. Civil law or employment contract - what to choose

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation as the basis for the emergence of an employment relationship of actual admission to work can be considered an important tool in achieving these goals, since it makes it possible to cover widespread situations in the field of hired labor within the legal framework. However, the realities of the actual admission to work lead to the fact that the rights of the employee are not respected when hiring, and this in turn leads to labor disputes. The procedure for resolving disputes over the actual admission of an employee to work is aimed at determining the degree of participation (so-called guilt) of the employer who has the specified powers in the implementation of admission to work. In turn, in order to solve the problem, it is first necessary to reveal the essence of the labor relationship as a bilateral one. I will give an example of an article 61 TC, which reads: "The moment the employment contract enters into force is determined, among other things, as the day the employee is actually admitted to work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative." According to the legislator, this means that when concluding an employment contract, the participants in the relationship that has arisen are endowed with legal rights and responsibilities, and they must look after each other's interests. The absence of a formalized contract after the expiration of the statutory period may mean for both the employee and the employer the emergence of additional rights and obligations, the implementation of which puts the employee in a very uncertain position. Improper execution of an employment contract or failure to conclude it in this case may serve as a reason for the employer to use deliberately false information in order to refuse the employee to sign an employment contract.

At the same time, a number of unresolved questions arise before the employee:

Should he in without fail require an employment contract?
Is he not generally deprived of the right to demand its conclusion in the event of an untimely application for the execution of a contract based on the fact of admission to work?

Russian courts are already beginning to face similar examples. Thus, the defendant in the reinstatement case, considered by the Dzerzhinsky Court of the city of Perm, denied in court the fact that he had an employment relationship with the plaintiff. Referring to the fact that no one allowed the plaintiff to work, labor contract in writing was not concluded, the employer did not issue an order for the admission and dismissal of the plaintiff. It should be noted that in accordance with Art. 50 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections. In the proposed example, the employee is deprived of the opportunity to present arguments in his favor, he faces another difficulty related to changes in claims: raising the question of reinstatement may seem premature, since the issue of compulsion to conclude an employment contract has not been resolved in the prescribed manner . In fact, the employee should not suffer due to non-fulfillment of his duties by the other party to the contract. For this reason, it is appropriate to point out that in Article 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the execution of an employment contract is designated as the obligation of the employer. In accordance with Art. 22 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, he is obliged to comply labor law, and its non-fulfillment is a reason for applying measures of responsibility to it. Taking into account the will of the legislator, expressed in Article 61 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the commencement of the employment contract, it can be recognized that the employee’s claims for reinstatement at work can be recognized as justified. However, it should also be noted that the fact that Art. 61 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation to draw up an employment contract cannot be fulfilled by him unilaterally. Therefore, this norm, no doubt, should strengthen the responsibility of the employee for his actions. In connection with the problem of resolving disputes arising from the actual admission to work, it is necessary to analyze the rules on the content of the employment contract. According to article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employment contract must indicate its mandatory conditions . In the absence of a written form, they turn out to be loose, which gives the parties reason to assert the absence of the agreement itself. This issue is especially acute when it comes to wage conditions. When actually admitted to work, employees often receive a salary in a closed form (envelope), without a statement and without signature, and in the event of a dispute, they cannot substantiate either the principles or conditions for paying remuneration for work. Scientists in the field labor law, believe that a false agreement between an employee and employers on certain terms of an employment contract cannot indicate the absence of the contract itself. After all, the recognition of such a sequence would mean the denial of the very possibility of the emergence of an employment relationship with the actual admission to work. However, such a basis is expressly fixed in Article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Implementing the requirements of this article, today the practical application of this norm suggests that when determining the amount of amounts to be collected, proceed from the minimum wage. It is not uncommon for an employee to work one at a time during employment. labor function, and the employment contract was drawn up differently. What contract should be considered concluded in this case is important for both the employee and the employer. At the same time, in the absence of an agreement between them on this issue, it is rather difficult to determine how to achieve expediency in the procedure for drawing up an employment contract. Cases when employers violate labor laws and involve employees in work without concluding an employment contract, with increase every year. This is facilitated not only by the small number of rules governing the actual admission to work, but also by the lack of unity in their interpretation and interpretation by the court. The most optimal solution to this problem is to equate citizens working without an employment contract with those with whom an employment contract was concluded. Of course, following this, it will be necessary to resolve a number of issues about providing employees statutory social guarantees. But the main goal is to achieve orderliness in the application of labor law in relation to employees with whom an employment contract was concluded, and those who were actually admitted to work.]]>

If you ask any manager or HR officer, everyone will be able to answer whether a certain candidate was admitted to the job or not.

But nevertheless, starting to find out such questions as “What is a work permit?”, “How is it issued?”, “Does the employee know that he is allowed to work and when?”, It immediately turns out that the employer is very approximately understands the essence of this process, and often company officials give different options for what a work permit is.

Many people confuse the concept of "permit to work" with the date specified in the employment contract as the time of employment. At the same time, in some cases this may indeed be the case, but only when an employment contract is signed with the employee ALWAYS before the first day of employment, namely not on the first day, nor within three working days that are given to the employer under Art. 68 Labor Code RF, and always earlier than this date, at least the day before. If the employment contract can be signed with the employee on the first day of work (the most common practice today in Russian companies), then such a definition that the tolerance is the date specified in the employment contract is no longer suitable. And in general, it is not recommended to confuse these two concepts, because otherwise the employer puts himself at a standstill if the employee does not go to work within the time specified in the employment contract.

Many believe that work permit is when the employee actually began to perform official duties. But after all, from the moment of admission, we had to start time-sheeting the employee and paying him as working time. Do many employers really do this? I can definitely say no. I will give just one example. If all employment documents are drawn up on the first day of work, then the employer, before signing the employment contract, is obliged to familiarize the employee with local regulations under painting. That is, first, the employer (on the first day of hiring) introduces the employee to local acts, then signs an employment contract, then instructs on labor protection, and only then the employee actually ends up at his workplace and can start work. And on this day, the employer has a mark “I” in the time sheet and costs 8 hours. That is, based on the logic of timesheet, it turns out that the employer already considers familiarization with local regulations to be a tolerance, since he has time-sheeted this time and is ready to pay for it? After all, if the employer really considered the time when the employee actually started work as a tolerance, with this procedure for processing documents and personnel procedures, the time sheet on the first day should have fewer hours than 8? That's what we're talking about. That the employer himself often verbally voices one concept of "tolerance", and by his own maintenance of the time sheet contradicts his own definition.

“And what is critically important in this topic?”, You ask. Well, admission and admission, well, we can’t clearly define what it is, what the problem is, the main thing is that the employee and I understand each other well. And here it is not. Do not understand. And there is a problem.

Since January 1, 2014, a number of articles have been adjusted in the Labor Code, for example 16, in which a new wording has been added that the admission to work is carried out by the employer or a person authorized by him, and since January 1, 2015 in the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses added a new basis for bringing to administrative responsibility - Art. 5.27 clause 2 on admission to work by a person not authorized by the employer, if the employer further denies the fact of the start labor relations. At the same time, for such an administrative offense, an administrative fine is provided only for an official, that is, for the one who allowed the applicant to work without being authorized to do so. And the Labor Code provides for the right of the employer to recover material damage from such an employee who carries out unauthorized access.

And now we are only talking about the changes that were adopted in the Labor Code and the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Responsibility over the past year. What are these requirements based on? Doesn't the employer have other violations that are much more serious? The question is that in the last 5 years there has been a new judicial and even inspection practice between job seekers and the employer on a dispute related to whether the employee was allowed to work or not? Since when was the employee paid for the work? And this is the judicial and inspection practice and resulted in the fact that the norms of the legislation were adjusted.

What follows from all this? Let's be short and to the point:

First: each employer needs to DOCUMENTARY authorize company officials (or one official) to allow applicants to work. This can be done in the form of an order, a power of attorney, a local act, etc.

Second: it is necessary to clearly define what exactly is your work permit (there is no legislative requirement that such a “permit” is. There are only procedures built around this permit: conducting labor protection briefings, signing an employment contract, an order for admission to work, cancellation of the employment contract), also write this down (for example, in local act) and introduce this document to applicants.

Third: to be ready, when passing an inspection check, to clearly answer the question of what a permit is, what document it is drawn up and who is authorized to allow workers to work.

And most importantly, remember that what I am writing about now, we should have done since January 1, 2014.

In accordance with Article 67 of the Labor Code (LC), when a person starts work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, then the employment contract is considered concluded, even if it is not executed in writing.

This situation is called the actual admission to work. When the employee is actually admitted to work, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract with him in writing no later than 3 working days from the date the employee is actually admitted to work.

actual tolerance is considered an improper procedure for concluding an employment contract, but, despite this circumstance, it is expressly provided for in Articles 61 and 67 of the Labor Code as the basis for the emergence of labor relations.

What does the internship include?

At present, more and more often in organizations, especially in medium and small businesses, people hired, organize the so-called internship.

Its duration is set in different sizes - as a rule, from 2 to 5 days, sometimes it is delayed until a person passes a certain qualifying exam or test.

At the same time, it often happens that the very next day after the employment of an employee who has completed an internship, they are suspended from work.

As a rule, such suspension from work is explained by the fact that the director did not sign the employment contract and the order for employment.

Can a newly hired worker protect himself?

Consider the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 28, 2006 No. 63, which amended and supplemented the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 17, 2004 No. 2 "On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation."

In paragraph 1, an explanation appeared that a labor dispute that arose in connection with a refusal to hire is not a dispute about reinstatement, since it does not arise between the employer and a person who was previously in an employment relationship with him. At the same time, paragraph 10 of the same Decree clarifies that when considering disputes related to denial of employment, it is necessary to check whether the employer made an offer of available vacancies, whether negotiations were held on employment, i.e. whether there was a conversation with the coordination of the position, specialty, qualifications, working and rest conditions, payment issues. No less important is the grounds on which this person was refused to conclude an employment contract.

In the practice of formalizing labor relations, quite often, after a conversation in the personnel department, the applicant goes to the head of the section (head of the department), i.e. to the future immediate supervisor.

Section chief, wanting to find out professional qualification appoints an "internship". The applicant is given all the necessary supplies, and during the working day he demonstrates his professional suitability.

The next day, the applicant is denied employment, explaining that the director did not sign the employment contract and the order for employment. In the course of resolving a labor dispute, given the absence of a written employment contract and an employment order, it is concluded that there was no employment relationship with this employee.

However, in accordance with Article 67 of the Labor Code, when a person starts work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, the employment contract is considered concluded, even if it is not executed in writing. This situation is called the actual admission to work. The actual admission is considered an improper procedure for concluding an employment contract, but, despite this circumstance, it is expressly provided for in Articles 61 and 67 of the Labor Code as the basis for the emergence of labor relations.

In this situation, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract in writing and submit it to the employee for signature no later than 3 working days from the moment when he began to fulfill his job duties. Within the same 3 days, the employer is obliged to prepare an order for employment, announce it to the employee against signature, and issue a copy of the specified order to the employee at his request.

What to do to the "dismissed" worker?

Labor relations, in accordance with the law, arise from the first day of the internship.

Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The consequences of the actual admission to work by an unauthorized person

Person eligible for such an examination professional suitability, is recognized as an employee, i.e. a full-fledged party to the labor relations that have arisen. In case of refusal in further employment, this employee has the right to file a claim against his employer for reinstatement. Such a claim is considered directly in the district (city) court in accordance with Art. 391 TK.

The courts consider individual labor disputes at the request of the employee, when the employee goes to court, bypassing the commission on labor disputes.

Directly in the courts, individual labor disputes are considered at the request of the employee - on reinstatement, regardless of the grounds for termination of the employment contract, on changing the date and wording of the reason for dismissal, on transferring to another job, on payment for the time of forced absenteeism, or on payment of the difference in wages during execution underpaid work, about unlawful actions (inaction) of the employer in the processing and protection of personal data of the employee.

The employee has the right to apply to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within 3 months from the day when he learned or should have learned about the violation of his right, and for disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order to him or from the date of issue of the work book.

In case of recognition of dismissal or transfer to another job illegal worker must be reinstated at the previous job by the body considering the individual labor dispute. The body considering an individual labor dispute makes a decision to pay the employee the average earnings for the entire period of forced absenteeism or the difference in earnings for the entire period of performing lower-paid work.

If the body considering an individual labor dispute recognizes the employee's monetary claims as justified, they are satisfied in full.

The decision to reinstate an employee who was illegally dismissed (or not hired illegally), or to reinstate an employee who was illegally transferred to another job, is subject to immediate execution. If the employer delays the execution of such a decision, the body that made the decision shall issue a ruling on payment to the employee for the entire time of the delay in the execution of the decision of the average earnings or the difference in earnings.

Actual admission to work

We correct the mistakes of lawyers, accountants, auditors, tax inspectors, employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, judges and other law enforcers before they happen, and even after…

The non-profit partnership "Republican Law Society" has been operating since 2002. Our work is aimed at developing effective legislative regulation in Russia, increasing the professionalism, competitiveness and quality of services of the Russian legal market, ensuring accessibility legal services citizens and legal entities.

For more than 11 years of practice, the Republican Law Society has implemented a significant number of joint projects with government bodies management, providing their methodological, consulting and organizational support, initiated discussions on topical social and legal issues, participated in the reform federal bodies executive power.

We have the knowledge, competencies and experience, on the basis of which we provide assistance to representatives of the middle and big business in building effective and constructive relationships with state executive and regulatory bodies, doing business in full compliance with established regulatory requirements.

We are ready to take on the solution of legal, financial, organizational and other problems that arise in the course of your company's activities, in return providing the most valuable thing we have - our reputation.

Over the years of our work, our clients have been:
JSC "AK" Unity ", Moscow oil company, Moscow Fuel Company, GK "Heliopark", FSUE "Microgen", JSC "TD "TSUM", IF "Olma", National Logistics Company, STC "Altair", HOA "Ekaterinovka", JSC "Kominkom", Moscow State Regional University , Scientific Center of Neurology of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, etc.

Specialists of departments of the Republican law society provided legal support for the bankruptcy procedures of JSC "Tsentrenergomontazh", JSB "Negociant-bank", JSC "Plant of non-standard technological equipment”, CB “Moscow Commercial Land Bank”, JSCB “Deviza”, etc.

The current version of Art.

We issue an actual work permit

67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation with comments and additions for 2018

If an individual was actually admitted to work by an employee not authorized by the employer, and the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer, labor relations (conclude with the person actually admitted to work to work, employment contract), the employer in whose interests the work was performed is obliged to pay such to an individual actual time worked by him (work performed).

An employee who has made the actual admission to work without being authorized by the employer is held liable, including material liability, in the manner prescribed by this Code and other federal laws.

(The article was additionally included from January 1, 2014 by the Federal Law of December 28, 2013 N 421-FZ)

Commentary on Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

The commented article establishes the consequences of the actual admission to work by an unauthorized person, which are aimed at protecting the rights of the employee who performed the work, as well as at bringing to responsibility an unscrupulous employee who carried out the actual admission to work without being authorized by the employer.

It should be noted that part 1 of the commented article provides for the onset of the corresponding consequences, subject to a number of conditions:
- an individual was actually admitted to work by an employee not authorized by the employer;
- the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer as labor relations (to conclude an employment contract with the person actually admitted to work).

In the event of the occurrence of the described situation, the employer, in whose interests the work was performed, is obliged to pay such an individual for the time actually worked by him (work performed).

A person who has been admitted to work without appropriate authority may be held administratively liable. In accordance with Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the actual admission to work by a person not authorized for this by the employer, if the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer, labor relations (does not conclude with the person actually admitted to work, an employment contract), entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of three thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles.

In addition, Art. 233 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the material liability of a party to an employment contract occurs for damage caused by it to the other party to this contract as a result of its guilty unlawful behavior (action or inaction). Thus, in relation to the provisions of the commented article, an employee who has actually been admitted to work, without being authorized by the employer, is a party that has caused damage to the employer in the amount (in the general case) of the remuneration of the person actually admitted to work.

Another commentary on Art. 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

1. On the concept of "a representative authorized by the employer" see Art. Art. 16, 57, 67 of the Labor Code and comments to them.

2. The commented article establishes legal implications actual admission to work by an unauthorized person, which occurs both for a natural person who has started work in the order of actual admission, and for an employee who unreasonably admitted to work.

3. The actual admission to work is a volitional act of two parties - a person entering work as an employee, and an employer acting personally or through his authorized representative.

The only circumstance discrediting the this case the actual admission to work, as a right-establishing legal fact, is that this admission was carried out by an improper subject, i.e. in the employment contract there is no expression of the will of the party that is the employer, and therefore there is no employment contract itself. The elimination of this defect is sufficient for the actual admission to work to be the basis for the emergence of an employment relationship.

4. Since the employee who has actually been admitted to work does not have the authority to hire employees, his actions by themselves cannot serve as the basis for the emergence of an employment relationship with an individual admitted to work, and, accordingly, do not give rise to the obligation of the employer to draw up an agreement with this person in writing. However, if these actions are approved by the employer or his authorized representative, the employment relationship should be considered as having arisen from the moment the natural person admitted to work actually began work. Approval can be carried out by means of a written execution of an employment contract with this person.

5. Evidence of the intention of an individual unjustifiably admitted to work to enter into an employment relationship is his actions after admission, carried out as an employee (performing a quantitatively and qualitatively determined measure of labor, compliance with the rules of internal work schedule etc.), or readiness to carry out such actions ( this person in accordance with the current internal labor regulations, he regularly comes to the assigned workplace in anticipation of instructions from the employer to perform specific work).

6. In case of unjustified admission to work, labor relations with the person admitted to work do not arise, however, the employer is obliged to pay this person for the time actually worked by him (work performed). The amount of remuneration for hours worked (work performed) may be determined in relation to the conditions of remuneration established for the relevant labor function (position). If a person unjustifiably admitted to work did not perform any real labor activity, but at the same time, in accordance with the internal labor regulations, was at the place determined for him upon admission as a workplace, this time is paid according to the rules established for payment of downtime for reasons beyond the control of the employer and employee (see Art. 157 TK and commentary to it).

7. The actions of an employee who has made the actual admission to work, without being authorized by the employer, are guilty and unlawful in nature and, therefore, can be qualified as a disciplinary offense, which is the basis for bringing this employee to disciplinary responsibility (see Art. Art. 192, 193 of the Labor Code and comments to them). In the event that, as a result of unjustified admission to work, the employer has suffered direct actual damage, the guilty employee may be brought to justice. liability(see Chapter 39 of the Labor Code and commentary to it).

Consultations and comments of lawyers on Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

If you still have questions about Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure that the information provided is up to date, you can consult the lawyers of our website.

You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are held free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 daily Moscow time. Questions received between 21:00 and 09:00 will be processed the next day.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation labor relations between an employee and an employer arise not only on the basis of an employment contract concluded in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but also on the basis of the actual admission of the employee to work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his authorized representative in the case when the labor contract does not was properly formatted.

From the day when the employee started work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his authorized representative, an employment contract that is not executed in writing is considered concluded and entered into force (part two of article 67, part one of article 61 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation ).

When the employee is actually admitted to work, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract with him in writing no later than 3 working days from the date of actual admission (part two of article 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Failure to comply with this requirement forms the composition of the offense under Part 4 of Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and may result in bringing the perpetrators to administrative responsibility. However, the employer's failure to proper execution the employment contract with the employee does not affect the fate of the labor relations that have arisen - they continue. At the same time, in the event of a dispute, the court may establish the content of the terms of an orally concluded employment contract on the basis of any evidence submitted by the parties or, in extreme cases, on the basis of the minimum level of guarantees for employees established by law (see, for example, the definition of Lipetsky regional court dated 11.08.2014 N 33-2140/2014, ruling of the Moscow City Court dated 14.05.2014 N 33-12102/14, ruling of the Altai Regional Court dated 17.04.2013 N 33-1181/13).

The obligation of the employer to draw up an employment contract with the employee properly arises only if the latter was admitted to work by the employer or his authorized representative. As indicated in paragraph 12 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 17, 2004 N 2, an authorized representative of the employer in this case is a person who, in accordance with the law, other regulatory legal acts, founding documents legal entity(organization) or local regulations or by virtue of an employment contract concluded with this person is empowered to hire employees.

The actual admission of an employee to work without the knowledge or instruction of the employer or his authorized representative is prohibited (part four of article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The consequences of violation of this prohibition are established in Art. 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. If an individual was actually admitted to work by an employee not authorized by the employer, and the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer, labor relations (conclude with the person actually admitted to work to work, employment contract), the employer, in whose interests the work was performed, is obliged to pay such an individual for the time actually worked by him (work performed). In turn, an employee who has actually been admitted to work, without being authorized by the employer, is held liable, including material liability, in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. Administrative responsibility for such an offense is provided

The actual admission is considered an improper procedure for concluding an employment contract, but, despite this circumstance, it is expressly provided for in Articles 61 and 67 of the Labor Code as the basis for the emergence of labor relations.

What does the internship include?

At present, more and more often in organizations, especially in medium and small businesses, people hired, organize the so-called internship.

Its duration is set in different sizes - as a rule, from 2 to 5 days, sometimes it is delayed until a person passes a certain qualifying exam or test.

At the same time, it often happens that the very next day after the employment of an employee who has completed an internship, they are suspended from work.

As a rule, such suspension from work is explained by the fact that the director did not sign the employment contract and the order for employment.

Can a newly hired worker protect himself?

The head of the section, wanting to find out the professional qualifications, appoints an "internship". The applicant is given all the necessary supplies, and during the working day he demonstrates his professional suitability.

In this situation, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract in writing and submit it to the employee for signature no later than 3 working days from the moment when he began to perform his labor duties. Within the same 3 days, the employer is obliged to prepare an order for employment, announce it to the employee against signature, and issue a copy of the specified order to the employee at his request.

What to do to the "dismissed" worker?

Labor relations, in accordance with the law, arise from the first day of the internship. A person admitted to such a test of professional suitability is recognized as an employee, i.e. a full-fledged party to the labor relations that have arisen. In case of refusal in further employment, this employee has the right to file a claim against his employer for reinstatement. Such a claim is considered directly in the district (city) court in accordance with Art. 391 TK.

The courts consider individual labor disputes at the request of the employee, when the employee goes to court, bypassing the commission on labor disputes.

Directly in the courts, individual labor disputes are considered at the request of the employee - about reinstatement, 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 the time of forced absenteeism, or about paying the difference in wages for the time of performance of lower-paid work, about illegal actions (inaction) of the employer in the processing and protection of the employee's personal data.

The employee has the right to apply to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within 3 months from the day when he learned or should have learned about the violation of his right, and in case of dismissal disputes - within one month from the date of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order to him or from the date of issue of the work book.

If the dismissal or transfer to another job is recognized as illegal, the employee must be reinstated in his previous job by the body considering the individual labor dispute. The body considering an individual labor dispute makes a decision to pay the employee the average earnings for the entire period of forced absenteeism or the difference in earnings for the entire period of performing lower-paid work.

If the body considering an individual labor dispute recognizes the employee's monetary claims as justified, they are satisfied in full.