The procedure for resolving collective labor disputes

The employer is obliged to compensate the employee for material damage caused to him by illegal deprivation of his opportunity to work (Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Such liability of the employer occurs if the employee does not receive earnings as a result of:

illegal removal of an employee from work, dismissal or transfer to another job;

the employer's refusal to execute or untimely execution of the decision of the labor dispute settlement body or the state legal labor inspector to reinstate the employee in his previous job;

delays by the employer in issuing a work book to an employee, entering in the wrong wording of the reason for dismissal that does not comply with the law.

According to the legislator, this is an exhaustive list. Until 2006 Art. 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation contained an indication of other cases provided for federal laws and collective agreement.

Currently, the most common grounds for bringing an employer to liability is illegal suspension from work, dismissal or transfer to another job. Suspension from work, dismissal and transfer to another job are regulated by the current labor legislation. In the cases provided for by Art. 76 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer is obliged to remove, not allow the employee to work. Therefore, most often it is not the very fact of suspending an employee from work that is illegal, but the procedure for applying such suspension is violated, which makes the corresponding order (instruction) of the employer illegal. Thus, when an employee who appears at work in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other toxic intoxication is removed, his medical examination is not carried out or an act is not drawn up on his appearance in this form at the workplace.

There are frequent cases of transferring an employee at the initiative of the employer to another job without his consent, prompting the employee instead of an employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, to agree to fixed-term contract, or under the threat of dismissal, switch to part-time, work week.

In small businesses, when hiring, employers often do not draw up a work book despite the requirements of the employee.

The employer is liable for damage caused to the property of the employee. Such liability arises in case of damage, damage, loss of outer clothing, headgear, other things belonging to the employee, even if he did not transfer them to responsible storage to the wardrobe. They can be stored at the workplace, on the territory of the organization in specially designated places.

The property of the employee includes monetary values. Local regulatory legal acts may provide for the obligation of the employer, in the event of postponement of the vacation, to compensate the employee for the unreimbursable costs incurred by him for the purchase of tickets, hotel reservations, etc.

The legislator pays special attention to the timely payment of wages and other payments due to the employee.

Ensuring the right of every employee to the timely and full payment of a fair wage, ensuring a worthy existence for him and his family, is enshrined in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation as a basic principle labor law(Art. 2). A similar obligation of the employer is contained in Art. 22 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: "To pay in full the wages due to employees within the time limits established in accordance with this Code, the collective agreement, internal labor regulations, labor contracts."

In market conditions of managing the delay by the employer of wages is widespread. It has become commonplace. The responsibility of the employer in such cases occurs regardless of his fault.

The legislator has provided a number of guarantees for the employee, encouraging the employer to pay him in a timely manner. So, if the payment of wages is delayed for more than 15 days, the employee has the right, by notifying the employer in writing, suspend work for the entire period until the payment of the delayed amount (part 2 of article 142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In case of untimely payment to the employee of annual paid leave, the employer, upon the written application of the employee, is obliged to postpone such leave for another period agreed with him (part 2 of article 124 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

In case of violation by the employer of the established deadline for the payment of wages, vacation pay and other payments due to the employee, the employer is obliged to additionally pay him monetary compensation in the amount of at least 1/300 of the refinancing rate in force at that time Central Bank RF from the delayed amounts for each day, starting from the next day after the due date up to and including the day of actual settlement. The amount of monetary compensation to an employee may be established by a collective or employment contract. At the same time, it cannot be lower than it is provided for by law (Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

In cases where financial position organization does not allow the employer to pay off employees within the prescribed period, a debt repayment schedule is drawn up, and in extreme cases, recognition of the organization, employer - individual bankrupt.

The employer is also liable in case of damage to the life and health of the employee. Such liability is regulated mainly by the norms of civil law.

Violation by the employer current legislation about work usually causes an employee mental or physical suffering. Concept definition moral damage in case of violation of the labor rights of workers, it was given in the resolution of the Plenum Supreme Court RF dated December 20, 1994 No. 10 "Some questions of the application of legislation on compensation for moral damage." According to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. moral or physical suffering can be caused by the action or inaction of the employer, infringing on material goods belonging to the citizen from birth or by virtue of the law (life, health, dignity, business reputation, immunity privacy, personal and family secrets, etc.) or violating his personal non-property rights (the right to use his name, the right of authorship and other non-property rights in accordance with the law on the protection of rights to the results of intellectual activity) or violating the property rights of citizens.

From the above definition it follows that compensation for moral damage is possible in case of a guilty offense by the employer, firstly, the natural rights of the employee, belonging to him from birth or by virtue of the law, both property and non-property; secondly, his personal non-property rights; thirdly, the property rights of the employee.

The employer's offense can be expressed in certain of his actions: it can be discrimination in the field of work, dismissal without legal basis or in violation of the established procedure, illegal transfer to another job, unreasonable disciplinary action, etc.

Guilty inaction of the employer, violating the rights of the employee, is manifested, for example, in violation of the rules of the technical process (failure to eliminate the malfunction in the equipment, failure to take the necessary measures to provide the employee with raw materials, materials, semi-finished products of proper quality, failure to familiarize him with new or updated technological instructions, labor protection rules, which led to the release of defective products, and, accordingly, a decrease in the employee's earnings).

Guilty inaction of the employer may take place in case of non-execution of decisions of the judicial authorities on the reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee in his previous job, etc.

Moral damage caused to an employee in the course of work is compensated in cash. Its size is determined by agreement of the parties. If the employee, in negotiations with the employer, could not agree on the need for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, or the parties did not reach an agreement on its size, then the employee can go to court. The court has the right to satisfy the requirements of the employee if the fact of the guilty infliction of moral harm by the employer on him is proved. In this case, the amount of compensation to the employee is determined by the court, regardless of the property damage subject to compensation (part 2 of article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

According to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court based on the specific circumstances of each case, taking into account the scope and nature of the moral or physical suffering caused to the employee, the degree of guilt of the employer, other noteworthy circumstances, as well as the requirements of reasonableness and justice.

Liability of the parties to labor relations: the responsibility of the employer to the employee

Home > Consultations > legal support > Liability of the parties to labor relations: the responsibility of the employer to the employee

The employer, as a party to an employment contract that caused damage to the other party, is obliged to compensate for it in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. The material liability of the parties to the employment contract may be specified in the employment contract or agreements concluded in writing and attached to it. At the same time, the contractual liability of the employer to the employee cannot be lower than that provided for by the Code or other federal laws.

The liability of the employer to the employee is regulated by Chapter 38 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Offensive liability employer is possible in the following cases:

• compensation to an employee for material damage caused as a result of illegal deprivation of his opportunity to work: illegal suspension from work (Article 76 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), illegal transfer (Articles 72, 73), illegal dismissal (Articles 77-84), the employer's refusal to execute or untimely and execution of the decision of the labor dispute resolution body or the state legal labor inspector to reinstate the employee in his previous job (Articles 389, 396, 357), delay in issuing a work book (Article 84.1), inclusion in the labor a book of incorrect or non-compliant wording of the reason for dismissing an employee (Article 66), failure to comply with the statutory deadlines for warning an employee about an upcoming dismissal (clause 7, Article 77, subparagraphs 1, 2, Article 81, Article 180) and more;
• compensation for damage caused to the property of the employee;
• compensation for moral damage caused to the employee by unlawful actions (or inaction) of the employer;
• in case of violation of the established deadline for the payment of wages and other payments due to the employee (Articles 136, 140-142 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation);
• when an employee is harmed by injury, occupational disease or other damage to health associated with the performance job duties.

Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation obliges the employer to reimburse the employee for lost earnings in cases where the employee was deprived of the opportunity to perform his labor duties.

Damage caused by the employer to the property of the employee is compensated on the basis of Art. 235 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The grounds for bringing the employer to liability under the named article include: damage to clothing in the performance of labor duties; loss of things from the wardrobe or in places designated for storage; loss of or damage to other personal property that, with the consent or knowledge of the employer, is used in the process labor activity. Damage will be reimbursed in full. With the consent of the employee, the damage can be compensated in kind. The employer is obliged to consider the employee's application for damages and make a decision within ten days. If the employee disagrees with the decision of the employer, he has the right to go to court.

The employer is obliged to compensate in cash the moral damage caused to the employee by illegal actions (for example, in the case of an illegal transfer, illegal dismissal, in case of employment discrimination). The amount of non-pecuniary damage must be determined by the parties to the employment contract. If the employer refuses to compensate moral damage voluntarily, the employee has the right to go to court.

Violation by the employer of the current labor legislation usually causes moral or physical suffering to the employee. The definition of the concept of non-pecuniary damage in case of violation of the labor rights of workers was given in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 20, 1994 No. 10 “Some issues of the application of legislation on compensation for moral damage”. According to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, moral or physical suffering can be caused by the action or inaction of the employer, infringing on the material benefits belonging to a citizen from birth or by virtue of the law (life, health, personal dignity, business reputation, privacy, personal and family secrets and etc.) or violating his personal non-property rights (the right to use his name, the right of authorship and other non-property rights in accordance with the law on the protection of rights to the results of intellectual activity) or violating the property rights of citizens.

In the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in Art. 236 establishes the rules for the liability of the employer to the employee - for the delay in the payment of wages. In these cases, the employer is obliged to pay all the amounts of money due to the employee (wages, vacation pay, payments upon dismissal) with the payment of interest (monetary compensation) in the amount of not less than one three hundredth of the current refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation from the amounts not paid on time for each day of delay, starting from the next day after the due date of payment up to and including the day of actual settlement. By Directive of the Bank of Russia No. 2873-U dated September 13, 2012, effective September 14, 2012, the Bank of Russia refinancing rate is set at 8.25% per annum. The amount of compensation may be increased by a collective or labor agreement.

The accrual of interest due to late payment of wages does not exclude the right of the employee to index the amounts of delayed wages due to their depreciation due to inflationary processes, since such indexation is not an independent measure of the employer's responsibility, but a technical mechanism for restoring the purchasing power of money not received by the employee in a timely manner .

An employee may be harmed by injury, occupational disease or other damage to health in the performance of his job duties. Such relations are regulated by the Federal Law of July 24, 1998 "On Mandatory social insurance from accidents at work and occupational diseases” (as amended on September 30, 2015). Compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents provides for compensation for harm caused to the life and health of the insured in the performance of duties under an employment contract by providing the insured in full with all required types insurance coverage, including payment of expenses for medical, social and vocational rehabilitation.

Accident at work - an event as a result of which the insured received an injury or other damage to health in the performance of his duties under an employment contract and in other cases established by this Federal Law both on the territory of the insured and outside it or while traveling to the place of work or return from the place of work on the transport provided by the insured, and which entailed the need to transfer the insured to another job, temporary or permanent loss of his professional ability to work or his death

The following types of compensation for harm to an employee are possible: compensation for lost earnings, depending on the degree of loss of professional ability to work; reimbursement of additional expenses in connection with a labor injury; lump sum allowance; compensation for moral damage.

Currently, these types of compensation for harm to an employee (except for non-pecuniary damage) are not made by employers from own funds, but by the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (insurer), to which employers (insurers) pay insurance premiums for employees. These relations go beyond the scope of labor law, therefore, compensation for harm is regulated by another branch of law - social security law.

§ 2. Liability of the employer to the employee

In the legal literature, there are three groups of cases of the employer's liability to the employee, depending on the violation of the employee's labor rights245.

The first group includes compensation for property damage resulting from a violation by the employer of the employee's right to work.

The second group combines cases of compensation for harm resulting from a violation of the employee's right to health protection, to healthy and safe working conditions in connection with causing him an industrial injury or occupational disease.

The third group includes cases of compensation to the employee for damage caused by the violation by the employer of other rights of the employee in an employment relationship, for example, the right to protect his personal property, in connection with the failure to ensure the safety of the employee's personal belongings during work.

Among the violations of the rights of workers in labor relations, the most common is the violation of the right to work. In accordance with Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer is obliged to reimburse the employee for earnings that he did not receive in all cases of illegal deprivation of his opportunity to work. Such an obligation, in particular, arises if earnings are not received as a result of: illegal removal of an employee from work, his dismissal or transfer to another job; the employer's refusal to execute or untimely execution of the decision of the labor dispute resolution body or the state legal labor inspector to reinstate the employee in his previous job; delays by the employer in issuing a work book to an employee, entering into the work book an incorrect or inconsistent wording of the reason for dismissal of an employee; in other cases stipulated by federal laws and the collective agreement.

Compensation to an employee for an unrealized opportunity to work and receive, as a result of work, a specific wage, established in accordance with an employment contract, from this or another employer is provided for by Article 165 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, all earnings not received for the period of time during which the employee is deprived of the opportunity to work according to the terms of the employment contract with this employer or conclude an employment contract with another employer in connection with the failure to issue a work book to him or the presence of an incorrect wording of the reason for dismissal are subject to compensation.

Earnings for the entire period of time until the employee is reinstated in his previous job or the employer provides the opportunity to start it, as well as earnings for the period of time before the actual issuance of the work book or the correct formulation of the reason for dismissal, will be considered not received. In the latter case, both earnings from this employer for the period from dismissal to the issuance of the work book or the correct wording of it, and earnings from another employer that could have been received by the employee during this period and actually not received by him due to the absence of a work book or an incorrect formulation of the reason for dismissal.

In particular, if it is proved that the date of employment could be the date of issue of the work book or the date closest to it, the wording of the reason for dismissal affected the terms of the concluded employment contract or its conclusion, then the employee, in accordance with Article 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, can prove the amount damages based on earnings not received from another employer for the entire period of forced absenteeism, or based on the existence of a difference in earnings for the entire time of performing lower-paid work or probation until the moment corrections are made to the work book246.

If the court recognizes the refusal to hire as illegal, the employee who has been subjected to discrimination or unreasonable refusal to conclude an employment contract has the right, if the employer is at fault, to receive compensation for the unrealized opportunity to work in the amount of earnings not received from him for the entire period of time until the restoration of his labor rights .

In cases of illegal suspension from work, transfer of an employee to another job with this employer, only that part of the earnings that the employee did not receive as a result of such suspension or transfer is subject to compensation (the amount of earnings to be received minus that received for the same period of time from this employer) . Other payments received from this employer for the same period of time (severance pay, temporary disability benefits) are subject to offset when collecting earnings.

The amount of material damage to be compensated by the employer (lost earnings) is proved by the employee. At the same time, information on the size of the average salary of the employee for the previous period of time, the existence of conditions in the employment contract, and other evidence are taken into account. The employer has the right to prove the legality of his actions or inaction, the absence of his fault, including in the event of a delay in issuing a work book. The guilt of the employer is assumed in case of refusal to comply with the decision of the body for the consideration of labor disputes or the state legal labor inspector on the reinstatement of the employee in his previous job and the delay in issuing a work book to the employee.

The second group combines cases of compensation to an employee for harm resulting from a violation of the employee's right to health protection, to healthy and safe working conditions in connection with causing him an industrial injury or occupational disease. These issues are discussed in those sections of this manual that are devoted to guarantees and compensations to employees in case of temporary disability, as well as in case of an accident at work and occupational disease (Articles 183, 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The liability of the employer for damage caused to the property of the employee is provided for by Article 235 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the employer, who caused damage to the property of the employee, compensates for this damage in full.

In the process of the employee's performance of his labor function or due to the impact of production factors, the occurrence of emergency or emergency circumstances (fire, collapse of a building) or as a result of the actions of the employer, the employee's property may be damaged. If the damage arose through the fault of the employer, then it is subject to compensation to the employee in full.

The fault of the employer is assumed in cases of failure by him to fulfill his obligation to ensure safe conditions and labor protection, non-compliance of production facilities and products with labor protection requirements, as well as in cases of damage at the workplace or other place under the control of the employer, by any unknown persons who find themselves there in due to improper provision by the employer of their exclusion from these places. Any property entrusted to the employer for safekeeping must be returned to the employee in the same quantity and condition. The employer is obliged to take measures to preserve and prevent the possibility of causing damage to property, to stop the actions of other employees and other persons that harm him.

The employer is not liable for damage to the employee's property caused as a result of illegal actions of other (known) persons, including other employees. In this case, the harm is compensated by these persons in a civil law manner. The employer is not responsible for damage to the property of the employee that occurred in the course of the performance of his labor duties, as a result of an accident or other circumstances that exclude the fault of the employer (force majeure, the fault of the injured employee).

If damage is caused to personal property used by the employee with the consent or knowledge of the employer and in his interests, for which the employee is paid compensation for use, wear and tear and expenses associated with its use, then the employer is liable only for damage in excess of the normal (planned or permissible ) decrease in the value of this property as a result of this use (depreciation established by agreement of the parties). The amount and procedure for compensation for such damage are determined in written agreement providing for reimbursement of expenses due to the use of the employee's personal property.

The amount of damage is calculated at market prices in force in the area at the time of its compensation.

The employee's claim for damages is sent to the employer. The employer is obliged to consider the received application and make an appropriate decision within ten days from the date of its receipt. If the employee disagrees with the decision of the employer or does not receive a response within the prescribed period, the employee has the right to go to court.

In order to put into practice the principles legal regulation labor relations, consisting in the prohibition of forced labor, ensuring the right of each employee to the timely and full payment of a fair wage that ensures a decent existence for the employee and his family, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for the first time defined the liability of the employer for delaying the payment of wages.

According to Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, liability arises if the employer violates the established deadline for paying wages, vacation pay, payments upon dismissal and other payments due to the employee. The employer is obliged to pay in full the wages due to employees within the time limits established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the collective agreement, the internal labor regulations of the organization, labor contracts. Violation of the established deadlines for the payment of wages or payment of wages not in full are referred to as forced labor. The employer and (or) his representatives, duly authorized by him, who have delayed the payment of wages to employees, are liable in accordance with the Labor Code and other federal laws. Representatives of the employer may be the heads of branches, representative offices and structural divisions of organizations and other employees endowed (by proxy, founding documents or normative act, act of the governing body) the right to issue wages to employees.

A delay in the payment of wages is considered to be its non-payment on the day established by the internal labor regulations of the organization, the collective agreement, the labor contract, and if the day of payment coincides with a day off or non-working holiday, its non-payment on the eve of this day. Payment days must be set at least during each half of the month, with the exception of certain categories employees for whom federal laws establish other terms for the payment of wages. A delay in payment for a vacation is the payment made later than three days before the start of the vacation.

The delay in payments to the employee upon dismissal, if he worked on the day of dismissal, will be the failure to pay him on that day all the amounts due from the employer. If the employee did not work on the day of dismissal, then the non-payment of the corresponding amounts during the day when the dismissed employee presented the demand for payment, or the day following it, is considered a delay in payments. In this case, the following working day may be recognized as the next day, since the employee’s demand made in the afternoon on the eve of a weekend or non-working holiday may turn out to be practically impossible through no fault of the employer.

Other payments due to the employee are also subject to monetary compensation in cases of delay in their payment due to the fault of the employer. Other payments are: downtime payment, reimbursement of expenses associated with a business trip, when moving to work in another locality, reimbursement of expenses in case of using the employee’s personal property, payment of temporary disability benefits, payment of other compensations.

When establishing guilt, the employer, in accordance with Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, is obliged to pay all amounts due to the employee with the payment of interest (monetary compensation) in the amount of not less than one three hundredth of the Central Bank refinancing rate in force at that time Russian Federation from amounts not paid on time for each day of delay, starting from the next day after the due date of payment up to and including the day of actual settlement.

In this way, Labor Code The Russian Federation has established an increased (compared to Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) liability of the employer for the use of the employee's funds. This is due to the stronger position of the employer as a party to the employment relationship. In the event of a delay in the payment of wages for more than fifteen days, the employee has the right, by notifying the employer in writing, to suspend work for the entire period of time until the payment of the delayed amount, except in special cases247.

The employer is obliged to independently accrue monetary compensation in case of delay in payments to the employee and issue it without any special request from the employee.

In cases where the employer refuses to pay the employee or fails to pay interest, the employee has the right to apply to the labor dispute resolution body (CCC or court) within three months from the date set for payment or from the date of receipt of payment without interest payable. The employee's monetary claims for the payment of interest, if they are recognized as justified, are satisfied in full

The specific amount of monetary compensation for delayed payments due to the employee (not lower than that established by the Labor Code) is determined by the collective or labor contract, and in the absence of a condition on this in them, it is taken equal to that established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

An employee may suffer not only property, in connection with the performance of his labor duties, but also moral harm. In accordance with Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, moral harm caused to an employee by unlawful actions or inaction of the employer is compensated to the employee in cash in the amount determined by agreement of the parties to the employment contract. According to Article 151 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, moral harm is understood as physical or moral suffering caused by the actions or inaction of the employer, violating the personal non-property rights of the employee or encroaching on other intangible benefits belonging to him.

Thus, the condition for compensation for non-pecuniary damage is the unlawfulness of the actions or omissions of the employer. The Labor Code established the monetary form of compensation and the procedure for determining its amount. The amount of compensation for moral damage to an employee is established in each specific case by an agreement between the employee and the employer, and in the event of a dispute between them, it is determined by the court. Regardless of the amount of property damage subject to compensation, the court has the right to satisfy the employee's claim for compensation for moral damage, establishing the fact of its infliction to the employee.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation and federal laws establish a number of cases in which an employee may be compensated for moral harm. These include cases of dismissal of an employee without a legal basis or in violation of the established procedure for dismissal, illegal transfer to another job, cases of discrimination in the field of work. Moral damage may be subject to compensation in other cases, in particular, in case of violation of the rules governing the processing and protection of the employee's personal data. In accordance with the Federal Law “On Compulsory Social Insurance Against Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases”248 compensation to the insured person for moral damage caused in connection with an industrial accident or occupational disease is carried out by its causer, which primarily means the relevant employer.

The fact of the presence of moral damage, a causal relationship with the unlawful actions or inaction of the employer and the latter's guilt in causing it must be proven by the employee.

The degree of moral or physical suffering is assessed by the court, taking into account the actual circumstances of causing moral harm, individual features the victim and other specific circumstances testifying to the severity of the suffering he endured. The court has the right to consider a claim for compensation for moral or physical suffering caused to a person, regardless of the consideration of any property claims, since under the law liability for moral harm can be applied both along with property liability and independently249.

Labor disputes on the material liability of the employee for damage, caused to the organization are dealt with directly by the court. In this case, the court is guided both by the norms of labor legislation (Articles 238-250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) and by the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 No. 52 63.

When considering a dispute about the liability of an employee, it is necessary to check whether the following 4 conditions are present for the onset of this liability:

1) the actual damage caused to the cash property of the organization or other property of others at work;

2) the unlawfulness of the action or inaction of the employee who caused the damage;

3) fault of the employee;

4) a causal relationship between these three conditions.

According to Art. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account lost income, as well as normal production and economic risks (for example, shrinkage, shake during transportation, etc.).

63 Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 No. 52 “On the application by the courts of legislation governing the liability of employees for damage caused to the employer” (as amended on September 28, 2010) // Russian newspaper. - 2006. - № 268.

Employees are liable for the damage they cause in the amount of direct actual damage, but, as a rule, not more than their average monthly earnings (Article 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Responsibility in full comes only in cases established by Art. 243 TK RF.

In case of a labor dispute on the full liability of the employee it is necessary to request and verify evidence from the employer that the employee bears full, and not limited, liability. Liability in the full amount of the damage caused is assigned to the employee in the cases provided for in Art. 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The head of the organization is fully liable for direct actual damage caused to the organization (Article 277 of the Labor Code RF).

With collective (team) full liability, just as in the case of an individual case, the court checks whether a written agreement on full material liability has been concluded with the employees (employee) correctly, whether the employer has ensured the necessary conditions for storing valuables and what is the degree of guilt of each employee held accountable.

The employer is obliged to establish the amount and cause of damage (Article 247 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

When considering a dispute, the court must clearly establish the type of material liability of the employee in this particular case.

Compensation for damage in an amount not exceeding the average monthly salary is made in accordance with the employer's order to deduct damage from wages (Article 248 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). This order must be issued no later than one month from the date of the final determination of the amount of damage caused by the employee. If the employee does not agree with such a deduction, he has the right to challenge it in court (Article 248 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). When considering this dispute, the court must check whether the established procedure and the specified deadlines have been observed, and what the amount of damage is.

For all types of liability, the court has the right, taking into account the degree and form of guilt, the specific circumstances and financial situation of the employee, to reduce the amount of damages recovered (Article 250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The amount of damage is determined on the basis of Art. 246 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

In case of collective (brigade) liability, the court is also guided by a written agreement on such liability concluded by all members of the collective (team) with the employer. In this case, the court first checks the legality of the conclusion of such an agreement, and then the existence of conditions for this liability.

When considering cases of material liability of minors, it is necessary to check the legality of the agreement concluded with them on full material liability, since such agreements are concluded only with adults. The procedure for concluding these agreements and the list

When considering disputes on the liability of the employer for harm caused to the employee, the court is guided by the Federal Law of July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ 65 and Ch. 38 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Art. 234-237). At the same time, the court also takes into account the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994 No. 10 66.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes the obligation of the employer to compensate the employee for material damage caused in as a result of illegal deprivation of his opportunity to work, those. violation of his right to work (Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Such material liability of the employer will be calculated in the amount of earnings not received by the employee in the following cases:

a) illegal removal of an employee from work, his dismissal or transfer
water for another job, i.e. is payment for forced absenteeism in connection with the
involved in the illegal actions of the employer;

b) if the employer refuses to perform or untimely performance by him
decisions of the body for the consideration of labor disputes (court, higher administrative
nistration) about reinstatement at work, i.e. this is a payment for a forced prog
la to the employee due to non-fulfillment or untimely fulfillment of the decision
about his reinstatement at work;

c) if the employer delays the issuance of a work book to the employee,
in the work book of an incorrect or inappropriate legislator
to the formulation of the reason for the dismissal of the employee.

Labor Code of the Russian Federation in Art. 235 expressly fixed that the employer also bears financial responsibility for damage caused to the property of the employee. He compensates for this damage in full at the market prices of the given area at the time of compensation for damage or, with the consent of the worker, compensates for the damage in kind. Here, the legislator also provided for the procedure for self-settlement of these disagreements between the employee and the employer. Thus, the employee sends an application for compensation for this damage to the employer, who must consider it and make an appropriate decision within 10 days from the date of its receipt. If the employee does not agree with the decision of the employer or if he did not receive his answer within the specified 10-day period, then he can apply for the resolution of the labor dispute that has already arisen in this case to the court. Here, a general 3-month claim period applies to the employee from

and Decree of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2002 No. 85 “On approval of the lists of positions and works replaced or performed by employees with whom the employer can conclude written agreements on full individual or collective (team) liability, as well as standard forms of agreements on full liability” // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. - 2003. - No. 25.

65 Federal Law of July 24, 1998 Ns 125-FZ "On compulsory social insurance against accidents
cases at work and occupational diseases” (as amended on 09.12.2010) // Collection of legislation
RF. - 1998. - No. 31. - Art. 3803.

66 Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 20, 1994 No. y “Some issues of application
legislation on compensation for non-pecuniary damage” (as amended on February 6, 2007) // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. - 1995. - No. 29.

The day of receipt of an unsatisfactory decision of the employer or non-receipt of it within 10 days.

When considering labor disputes about the liability of the employer to the employee under Art. 234 and 235 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the court must request from the employee and examine the following evidence in support of his claim (i.e., in the dispute of Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation):

1) what was the deprivation of the employee of the opportunity to work expressed;

2) whether there are unlawful and illegal actions of the employer and how they are expressed;

3) what amount of material damage has been caused to the employee and is subject to compensation by the employer.

In the event of a dispute over compensation for damages caused by employee's property(Article 23 5 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), it is necessary to request from the employee and examine the following evidence:

1) what property of the employee and when, under what circumstances the damage was caused and how it is expressed;

2) whether there are unlawful and guilty actions of the employer in causing this damage;

3) in what amount the employer must compensate for this damage if it is caused by his actions that violate the safety of the employee's property.

Material employer's liability for late payment of wages and other payments due to the employee are provided for in Article 236 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

If the employer violates the established deadline for paying wages, vacation pay, dismissal payments and other payments due to the employee, the employer is obliged to pay them with the payment of interest (cash compensation) in the amount of not less than 1/300 of the current refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation from not amounts paid on time for each day of delay from the next day after the due date of payment up to and including the day of actual settlement. The amount of monetary compensation paid to an employee may be increased by a collective or labor agreement. The obligation to pay the specified monetary compensation arises regardless of the fault of the employer.

When considering this dispute, the court must request and examine the following evidence:

1) whether the payment specified in the employee's claim has been accrued;

2) whether there was a delay in the payment of the accrued payment and what is the period of this delay;

3) is the employer's fault in this delay in payment of the accrued wages to the employee;

4) what amount of compensation for the delayed amounts due to be paid must be collected from the employer.

The employer can pay compensation for the delay in payment voluntarily, otherwise the court, having examined the indicated evidence, issues a ruling on extradition to the employee court order for the entire due amount. This court order is executed through the bailiff-executor.

For a malicious delay in the payment of accrued wages, the employer can be held criminally liable and sue for compensation for moral harm.

Similar information.

The concept of liability of employees

Liability of employees- this is the legal obligation of employees to compensate in full or in part the direct actual damage caused by their illegal and guilty actions to the employer for whom they work. Liability is applied regardless of bringing the employee to disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability. Liability should be distinguished from such measures of material influence as the deprivation or reduction of bonuses, remuneration based on the results of work for the year, etc.

Types of liability (full and limited)

Article 402 of the Labor Code establishes that employees, as a rule, bear full liability for damage caused through their fault to the employer. Legislation, collective agreements, agreements may establish limited material liability of employees for damage caused to the employer through their fault, with the exception of cases provided for in Article 404 of the Labor Code.

Limited liability means that the employee is obliged to compensate for the damage in the amount of his actual damage, but the amount of compensation cannot exceed the average monthly earnings.

Full liability- this is liability in the amount of the damage caused without limiting it to any limit. Full liability arises if no exemptions are made from general rule on full liability. In addition, full liability in cases provided for in Article 404 of the Labor Code.

Most often, full liability occurs when a written agreement on full liability is concluded between the employee and the employer.

Labor disputes are divided into individual and collective.

Individual labor dispute- this is a dispute (disagreement) between the employee and the employer on the application of legislative and other regulations, collective agreement and other labor agreements.

Subject acts personally defined employee. They are usually considered in commissions on labor disputes (CTS), courts of general jurisdiction.

Collective labor dispute (conflict) - these are unresolved disagreements between the parties to collective labor relations regarding the establishment, change in the socio-economic conditions of work and life of workers, the conclusion, change, execution or termination of collective agreements, agreements.

The reasons - guilty acts officials, group selfishness of workers who do not take into account the public interest.

The subject is employees (labor collective) represented by representative bodies. Allowed by conciliation commissions, labor arbitrations, Republican labor arbitration.

49. Criminal law. Subjects. Objects. Principles of criminal law. Criminal liability.

The concept of criminal law as a branch of law. The basis of the UE, as well as all branches of law, is the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, in which the problems of protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen, the interests of society and the state occupy a central place and are directly related to issues of criminal liability. Criminal law is a branch of Russian law, which is a set of legal norms established by the highest bodies of state power, determining the criminality and punishability of acts, the grounds for criminal liability, the purpose of punishment and the system of punishments, the general principles and conditions for their appointment, as well as exemption from criminal liability and punishment.

Principles of criminal law.

a) The principle of legality (art. 3): In accordance with the principle of legality, only the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can establish liability for specific actions or omissions. An exception to this rule is the regulation by the legislation of the Russian Federation of wartime of criminal liability for crimes against military service committed in wartime or in a combat situation, provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation itself. The principle of legality means that the person who committed the crime must suffer a strictly defined punishment: in the form, within the limits and in the amount provided for by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The principle of legality is concretized through the prohibition of the application of criminal law by analogy.

b) The principle of equality of citizens before the law (Article 4): Consolidation of this principle means a single basis of criminal liability for all persons, an equal right to the necessary defense, independence from the demographic or social characteristics of the individual, the grounds for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, the conditions for extinguishing a criminal record.

c) The principle of guilt (Article 5) means the subjective imputation and personal nature of criminal liability. Subjective imputation excludes liability without fault: if there is no intent or negligence, the act cannot be qualified as a crime. The personal nature of responsibility is manifested in the fact that each person is criminally liable only for the acts that he himself committed: responsibility cannot be shifted to other persons.

d) The principle of justice (art. 6): The punishment imposed by the court on a person for committing a crime must be fair, i.e. correspond to the nature and degree of social danger of the crime: sanctions for crimes characterized by significant social danger must be more severe than sanctions for less dangerous crimes. This principle reproduces within the framework of the criminal law the constitutional provision: “No one can be repeatedly convicted for the same crime”. This side of the principle of justice enriches the principles of legality and humanism.

e) The principle of humanism (art. 7) is manifested primarily in the fact that the object of criminal law protection is human values ​​(such as life, health, rights, legitimate interests and freedoms of a person). UE is also protected. security of the individual and society as a whole. The second side of the principle of humanism is addressed to ensuring the rights of a person who has committed a crime: punishment and other measures of a criminal law nature applied to a person cannot be aimed at causing physical suffering or humiliation of human dignity. In accordance with the principle of humanism, a more severe type of punishment from among those provided for the commission of a crime is assigned only if a less severe type of punishment cannot ensure the achievement of the goals of punishment.

The object of the crime is what the crime encroaches on. Any crime infringes on public relations and not on things. The object of the crime can only be that social relationship that is protected by the current law (Article 2: public interests, the benefits of man and citizen, the normal functioning of public and state institutions, the safe existence of people; the peace and security of mankind.

The concept of the subjective side of the crime. The subjective side of a crime is the mental activity of a person directly related to the commission of a crime. It forms the psychological, i.e. subjective, the content of the crime, therefore, is its internal (in relation to the objective) side. The subject of a crime is a person who has committed a crime and is capable of incurring criminal liability for it in accordance with the law.

Criminal liability- it is based on the legal obligation established by the criminal, criminal procedural and penal law, the real suffering by the person who committed the crime, state censure, restrictions and deprivation of his rights and freedoms. It begins from the moment the competent state body makes a procedural decision, the implementation of which restricts the rights and freedoms of a person and a citizen. The decision of the guilty verdict and its entry into legal force ends the ongoing process (act) of bringing a person to criminal responsibility. The pronouncement of a guilty verdict ends with its public proclamation, in which, on behalf of the state, it is announced that the person is guilty of a crime and, as a rule, that he is sentenced.

Criminal liability is the most acute form of state coercion of people to the observance of the law. Therefore, it is assigned to the person who committed the crime, in accordance with the special criminal procedural procedure established by federal law. The strictly regulated criminal procedural procedure for imposing criminal liability on a person who has committed a crime serves not as a means of retribution for what he has done, but as a way and procedural guarantee of ensuring the legality and validity of bringing him to criminal responsibility, preventing the erroneous conviction of a person who has not committed a crime. At the same time, the criminal procedural procedure for bringing a person to criminal liability is associated with significant restrictions on the rights and freedoms of the accused and the suspect.

For most labor disputes, a pre-trial resolution procedure is provided. In contrast, cases of material liability of employees are considered directly in court. Clause 1 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 No. 52 “On the application by the courts of the legislation governing the material liability of employees for damage caused to the employer” (hereinafter referred to as the Decree) clarifies the legal position, according to which, regardless of the value of the claim of the case on disputes about the material liability of an employee for damage caused to the employer are within the jurisdiction of justices of the peace. This rule It also applies when the damage was caused by the employee during the period of the employment contract, and the employer filed a claim after its termination. Consider the main requirements and provisions that should be taken into account when considering this category of cases in court.

When applying statement of claim Employers often refer to the fact that claims arising from labor relations are not subject to payment of state duty. Meanwhile, in accordance with Art. 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation the employer is exempted from paying state duty only when he goes to court with a claim for compensation for material damage caused by the employee's crime.

In other cases, the employer is obliged to pay the state duty, depending on the value of the claim, since, by virtue of sub. 1 p. 1 art. 333.36 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and art. 393 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when applying to the court with a claim arising from labor relations, employees, and not the employer, are exempted from paying duties and court costs.

Deadlines for going to court

The employer has the right to apply to the court for compensation for material damage caused by the employee within one year from the date the damage was discovered (Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

When checking the observance of the deadlines stipulated by law for applying to the court, it should be taken into account that the start of the specified deadlines is the day following the day when it became known about the occurrence of damage. If these deadlines are missed and the defendant initiates a dispute on the application of the limitation period, the employer has the right to file a petition for their restoration. In case of missing the specified deadlines for a good reason, the justice of the peace restores them. Missing the deadline for applying to the court can be recognized as valid, for example, when it is caused by the need to conduct inspections, audits, investigations, etc., on the fact of causing damage, which took a long time. Missing the statute of limitations is not grounds for refusing to accept a claim.

The amount of damage

In accordance with Art. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee is obliged to compensate the employer for the direct actual damage caused to him (clause 2 of article 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Previously, employees were obligated to compensate for damages incurred by the employer as a result of compensation for damages to other persons. This provision has now ceased to be valid.

Direct actual damage is understood as a real decrease in the employer’s cash property or deterioration in the condition of the specified property, including property of third parties held by the employer, if the employer is responsible for the safety of this property, as well as the need for the employer to incur costs (or excessive payments) for the acquisition, restoration of property or compensation for damage caused by the employee to third parties.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation grants the employer the right, taking into account the specific circumstances of causing damage, to refuse to recover it from the employee in whole or in part (Article 240 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Article 240 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation contains a provision that the owner of the property of the organization may restrict the specified right of the employer in cases provided for by federal laws, other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts of local governments, constituent organization documents.

Article 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes the limits of liability. As a general rule, the employee is liable for the damage caused within the limits of his average monthly earnings.

Article 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes cases of full liability, which consists in the obligation of the employee to compensate for the damage caused in full.

The procedure for determining the amount of damage is established by Art. 246 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the amount of damage caused to the employer in the event of loss and damage to property is determined by actual losses calculated on the basis of market prices in force in the area on the day the damage was caused, but not less than the cost property according to accounting taking into account the degree of wear and tear of this property. The federal law may establish a special procedure for determining the amount of damages subject to compensation caused to the employer by theft, deliberate damage, shortage or loss. certain types property and other valuables, as well as in cases where the actual amount of damage caused exceeds its nominal amount.

The amount of damage is determined on the basis of market prices, the concept of which is given in Art. 3 Federal Law No. 135-FZ dated July 29, 1998 "About appraisal activities In Russian federation" .

burden of proof

It is very important for the court to properly distribute the burden of proving the circumstances essential to the case. These, in particular, include: the absence of circumstances excluding the liability of the employee; unlawfulness of the behavior (action or inaction) of the tortfeasor; fault of the employee (of any form) in causing damage; causal relationship between the employee's behavior and the resulting damage; the presence of direct actual damage; the amount of damage caused; compliance with the rules for establishing individual, collective (team) responsibility.

If damage is discovered, the employer is recommended to conduct an internal audit.

To conduct an audit, the employer may create a commission with the participation of accounting workers (st. storekeepers, foremen, etc.). In accordance with Regulations on accounting dated 29.07.98 No. 34n, when facts of theft, abuse or damage to property are revealed, it must be an inventory has been made.

The procedure for conducting an inventory is established Guidelines oninventory of property and financial obligations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 13, 1995 No. 49. The inventory is carried out, as a rule, by the audit commission, which includes representatives of the administration, accounting, and other specialists (engineers, economists, technicians, etc.). After it has been carried out, it is necessary to draw up a collation statement (its form was approved by the Decree of the State Statistics Committee of Russia dated 18.08.98 No. 88). The collation statement is drawn up in two copies: one remains in the accounting department, the second is transferred to the employee responsible for the safety of valuables. It reflects the results of the inventory, i.e. discrepancies between accounting data and inventory records. Inventory materials are attached to the documents of the official investigation.

Requesting a written explanation from the employee to establish the causedamage is mandatory. In case of refusal or evasion of the employee from providing the specified explanation, an appropriate act is drawn up (Article 247 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The employee and (or) his representative have the right to get acquainted with all the materials of the audit and appeal them in the prescribed manner (Articles 386, 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). All of the circumstances listed above must be proven by the employer in court. If he proved in court the legitimacy of concluding an agreement with the employee on full liability and the fact that this employee has a shortage, the defendant bears the burden of proving that he is not guilty of causing damage.

Clause 5 of the Decree contains circumstances that exclude the possibility of bringing an employee to liability (Article 239 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). For example, actions of an employee that correspond to modern knowledge and experience, when the set goal could not be achieved otherwise, while the employee duly fulfilled the tasks assigned to him, can be attributed to normal economic risk. official duties, showed a certain degree of care and discretion, took measures to prevent damage. It is essential that the object of risk in this case was material values, and not the life and health of people.

Failure by the employer to fulfill the obligation to ensure proper conditions for the storage of property entrusted to the employee may serve as a basis for refusing to satisfy the requirements of the employer if this caused damage.

Manager's responsibility

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 278 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employment contract with the head of an organization may be terminated at any time by the owner of the property or an authorized body of the organization. Managers seek the inclusion in the contract of conditions that allow them to protect themselves from the arbitrariness of the employer. Some judges have encountered the fact that employment contracts with heads of organizations include conditions that are clearly contrary to the law.

Full financial responsibility can be established by an employment contract concluded with deputy heads, the chief accountant. In the previous version of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it was allowed to conclude an agreement on full liability with the head of the organization. However, as a result of the changes made to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation by Federal Law No. 90-FZ, Art. 243 of the Code there is no mention of the head of the organization as a subject of full liability. At the same time, there is Art. 277 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the head of the organization bears full liability for direct actual damage caused to the organization, regardless of whether a liability agreement was concluded.

Paragraph 9 of the Decree clarifies that the full liability of the head of the organization for damage caused to the organization comes by force of law (for example, on the basis of Article 277 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or paragraph 2 of Article 71 of the Federal Law of December 26, 1995 No. 208-FZ “On joint-stock companies”, or paragraph 2, article 44 of the Federal Law of February 8, 1998 No. 14-FZ “On Limited Liability Companies”). A manager who is guilty of causing damage to an organization cannot be released from compensation for material damage only on the grounds that the limits of his liability are limited by an employment contract.

Crimes and misdemeanors

When considering cases of full compensation for harm by employees who have committed crimes or administrative offenses, difficulties arise. This is due to the fact that in order to be held liable on this basis, a court verdict in a criminal case or a decision of the relevant state body in a case of an administrative offense is required.

In paragraph 11 of the Resolution, it is explained that the only basis for bringing an employee to full liability under paragraph 5 of part 1 of Art. 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is the infliction of damage as a result of criminal acts, confirmed by a sentence that has entered into legal force (including when the employee was fully or partially released from punishment, since the criminal nature of his actions was confirmed in the manner prescribed by law).

It is more difficult to resolve the issue of liability in the case when the employee was released from administrative responsibility for committing an offense due to its insignificance. There is an opinion that with the insignificance of an administrative offense there is no corpus delicti.

On the other hand, in paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Art. 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not refer to punishment for an administrative offense, but to the establishment by an authorized state body of the fact of an administrative offense. Clause 12 of the Resolution clarifies that in this case the employee may also be held liable in full.

Full liability agreement

When considering cases on the recovery of direct actual damage from an employee in the presence of an agreement on full individual or collective (team) liability, it is necessary to check the presence of the following conditions simultaneously:

1) the work or position of the employee with whom the contract is concluded must be indicated in the relevant list;

2) the employee has reached the age of 18;

3) the employee directly serves or uses monetary, commodity values ​​or other property (Article 244 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated December 31, 2002 No. 85 approved a new The list of positions and works in the performance of which full liability is introduced, as well as standard forms of agreements on full individual or collective (team) liability were approved. Standard forms are advisory and can be changed or supplemented by provisions that do not contradict the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in relation to the specific conditions and characteristics of the enterprise.

Compared to the previous one, the new list of persons with whom it is possible to conclude agreements on full liability has become wider. It additionally includes:

1) specialists involved in servicing ATMs;

2) specialists who issue, store and destroy bank, credit and discount cards;

3) heads of construction and installation shops and foremen engaged in construction and installation works;

4) laboratory assistants, methodologists of departments (deans), heads of library sectors, etc.

When concluding an agreement on liability, it is not the title of the position that matters, but the work actually performed by the employee. When deciding on the choice of the form of liability (individual or collective), the employer must take into account that full individual liability can be established if the following mandatory conditions are met:

1) material assets are transferred under the report to a specific employee, and it is he who is obliged to fully ensure their safety;

2) for the storage (processing, holiday, sale, etc.) of valuables, the employee, as a rule, is provided with a separate isolated room or place for storing valuables;

3) the employee independently reports to the accounting department of the organization for the values ​​​​accepted by him under the report.

All of the above follows from the content of the Standard form of an agreement on full individual liability. However, these requirements are not always met in practice, which in essence leads to the invalidity of liability agreements concluded with employees.

The imposition of liability is possible in respect of not all employees serving inventory and monetary values, but only in relation to those who hold positions or perform work related to the storage, processing, release (sale), transportation or use of these values ​​in the production process . In practice, there are cases (especially in commercial organizations), when individual financial responsibility is assigned to employees holding positions or performing work not specified in the List. For example, car drivers, engineers, mechanics, etc.

The invalidity of such contracts is obvious. However, in all cases, any condition of the employment contract that worsens the position of the employee compared to labor law, is declared invalid.

brigade responsibility

Questions also arise when considering cases of collective (brigade) liability, the legitimacy of which is often in doubt. It is not uncommon for an employer to bring claims against not all members of the team (team) who worked during the period of damage.

In such a situation, the court is faced with the need to resolve the issue of involving all interested parties in the case and determine their procedural status. In paragraph 14 of the Resolution, it is explained that in accordance with Art. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court has the right, on its own initiative, to involve in the case on the side of the defendant as third parties against whom claims are not brought, persons who do not declare independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, since the correct definition depends on this individual responsibility each member of the team (team).

Since the persons with whom an agreement on collective (team) liability has been concluded bear it in a shared, and not in a subsidiary manner, when determining the amount of damage to be compensated by each of the defendants, the court must take into account the degree of guilt of each member of the collective (team), the amount the monthly tariff rate (official salary) of each person, the time that he actually worked as part of a team (team) for the period from the last inventory to the day the damage was discovered.

Clause 16 of the Decree contains an important clarification based on the shared nature of collective material liability: reducing the amount of damage in case of collective (team) liability is permissible, but only after determining the amounts to be recovered from each member of the collective (team), since the degree of guilt, specific circumstances for each member of the team (team) may be different (for example, the effective or indifferent attitude of the employee to the prevention or reduction of damage, etc.). At the same time, a reduction in the size of the penalty from one or more members of the team (team) cannot serve as a basis for a corresponding increase in the size of the penalty from other members of the team (team).

In case of causing property damage to the employer, the employee may be held liable. When determining the amount of damage, only direct actual damage is taken into account; lost income (lost profit) is not taken into account. Under direct actual damage according to Art. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is understood as a real decrease in the employer's cash property or deterioration in the condition of the specified property (including property of third parties held by the employer, if the employer is responsible for the safety of this property), as well as the need for the employer to incur costs or excessive payments for the acquisition, restoration property or to compensate for damage caused by the employee to third parties.

Damage may include shortage and damage to valuables, the cost of repairing damaged property, penalties for non-fulfillment of economic obligations.

Whereas, in accordance with Art. 393 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when applying to the court with a claim for claims arising from labor relations, only employees are exempted from paying duties and court costs, the employer, when filing a claim for compensation for damage caused by an employee, is obliged to pay a state fee in the amount provided for in subpara. 1 p. 1 art. 333.19 of the second part of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.

As you know, the liability of an employee occurs when the following conditions are present simultaneously:

• 1) direct actual damage to the cash, real property of the employer;
• 2) the unlawful nature of the behavior of the employee (the damage was caused due to non-performance or improper performance of labor duties);
• 3) a causal relationship between the illegal action (inaction) and the resulting damage;
• 4) the fault of the employee who caused the damage in the form of intent or negligence.

All of these conditions are mandatory, and in the absence of at least one of them, employees cannot be held liable.

So, disputes about bringing an employee to liability arise at the initiative of the employer, in connection with which it is the latter who is obliged to prove the existence of all four conditions for the onset of liability, as well as facts indicating that the deadlines for bringing the employee to liability have been met and that there are no grounds, according to by which the employee can be relieved of such liability.

In this regard, paragraph 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 16, 2006 No. 52 emphasizes that the circumstances that are essential for the correct resolution of the case on compensation for damage by the employee, the obligation to prove which is assigned to the employer, in particular, include : the absence of circumstances excluding the liability of the employee; unlawfulness of the behavior (action or inaction) of the tortfeasor; fault of the employee in causing damage; causal relationship between the employee's behavior and the resulting damage; the presence of direct actual damage; the amount of damage caused; compliance with the rules for concluding an agreement on full liability.

In the event of a dispute regarding compensation for material damage caused to the employer, the employee also cannot evade the process of proving. He must provide evidence confirming his arguments about the impossibility of presenting claims against him from the employer regarding compensation for damage.

If the employer proves the legitimacy of the employee to conclude an agreement on full liability and the employee has a shortage, the latter is obliged to prove that he is not guilty of causing damage.

As noted in sub. "c" paragraph 17 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated April 14, 1988 No. 2 "On the preparation of civil cases for trial", in cases of the category under consideration, job descriptions defining labor functions of the defendant, evidence confirming the fact of causing and the amount of damage, certificates of wages, family and financial status of the defendant, and in a claim for full compensation for the damage caused, in addition, a copy of the agreement on full individual liability, collation statements, an audit report, invoices , copies of the verdict, etc.

According to Art. 239 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee cannot be held liable if the damage arose as a result of force majeure, normal economic risk, extreme necessity or necessary defense, or the employer’s failure to fulfill the obligation to ensure proper conditions for storing property entrusted to the employee.

The normal economic risk may include the actions of the employee that correspond to modern knowledge and experience, when the set goal could not be achieved otherwise, the employee duly performed the duties assigned to him, showed a certain degree of care and discretion, took measures to prevent damage, and the object risks were material values, and not the life and health of people (paragraph 5 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 No. 52).

The employer is obliged to create for employees the conditions necessary for normal work and ensuring the complete safety of the property entrusted to them. Failure by the employer to fulfill the obligation to ensure proper conditions for the storage of property entrusted to the employee may serve as a basis for refusing to satisfy the requirements of the employer if this caused damage.

By virtue of h. 1 Article. 238 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is not allowed to recover from employees those incomes that the employer could have received, but did not receive due to incorrect actions (inaction) of the employee.

As economic and judicial practice shows, significant material damage is caused to the employer by the use by employees for personal purposes of vehicles, equipment, mechanisms, etc., owned by the employer on the right of ownership. As a result, in addition to other losses, employers incur losses arising from the inability to operate the specified technical means for a certain period of time.

At one time, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR explained that when determining the amount of material damage caused by employees by unauthorized use of technical equipment (cars, tractors, truck cranes, etc.) belonging to enterprises with which they have labor relations, it is necessary proceed from the fact that such damage, as caused not in the performance of labor (service) duties, is subject to compensation using the norms of civil law. In these cases, the damage is compensated in full, including income not received by the employer from the use of these technical means.

The legal literature provides an example of the correct resolution of such disputes in judicial practice. During non-working hours, a tractor driver of the Beloretsk Repair and Construction Department (RCD) B. arbitrarily used a tractor assigned to him with a trailer to transport goods of citizens. As a result of the accident that occurred due to the fault of the tractor driver, the tractor, trailer and private house were damaged. RSU, as the owner of a source of increased danger, incurred the costs of repairing a residential building, a tractor and a trailer. In addition, DCS suffered losses in the form of lost revenues, as the tractor and trailer were not used for their intended purpose for nine days due to repairs. Under such circumstances, the Burzansky district, on the basis of the norms of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, satisfied the claim of the RSU against the defendant B. for compensation for the material damage caused by him in full, including the cost of repairing a residential building and the income not received by the employer due to the downtime of the tractor and trailer (in connection with the repair).

The above clarification and at the present time should be fully applied in practice as consistent with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on equal protection by the state of all forms of ownership.

In accordance with Art. 240 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer has the right, taking into account the specific circumstances under which the damage was caused, to fully or partially refuse to recover it from the guilty employee.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the owner of the property of the organization may limit the right of the employer to refuse compensation for damage (in whole or in part) to the guilty employee in cases provided for by federal laws, other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, laws and other regulatory legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, regulatory legal acts of local governments, constituent documents of the organization.

Labor legislation, depending on the amount of damages to be compensated, distinguishes two types of employee liability: limited and complete. Limited liability is named due to the fact that damages are limited in relation to the employee's wages, and with full liability, the employee compensates for damages in full without restrictions.

In view of the fact that in the process of performing duties, the employee uses the means and objects of labor and thereby runs the risk of causing property damage to the employer through negligence or lack of care, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes limited liability as the main type of material liability of employees.

Limited Liability consists in the obligation of the employee to compensate for direct actual damage, but not more than the limit (part) of his salary provided for by law.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a list of cases of damage, for which liability is established within the limits of the average monthly earnings of an employee. As practice shows, the most typical cases in which this type of liability occurs are:

• - negligent damage or destruction of the employer's property, materials, semi-finished products, products (products), as well as tools, measuring instruments, overalls and other items issued for use by the employee;
• - shortage of money, loss of documents, complete or partial depreciation of documents, payment of a fine by the employer due to the fault of the employee or the need for the employer to make excessive payments, etc.

If the employer has filed a claim for compensation by the employee for damages within the limits of his average monthly earnings (Article 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), however, during the trial, circumstances will be established with which the law associates the onset of the employee’s full liability, the court is obliged to decide on the claims stated by the plaintiff and cannot go beyond them, because by virtue of h. 3 Article. 196 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, such a right is granted to the court only in cases provided for by federal law.

According to Art. 242 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the full liability of the employee consists in his obligation to compensate the direct actual damage caused to the employer in full. Liability in the full amount of the damage caused can be imposed only in cases provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or other federal laws.

When considering a case on compensation for direct actual damage caused to the employer in full, the employer is obliged to provide evidence indicating that, in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or other federal laws, the employee can be held liable in the full amount of the damage caused and at the time of its infliction reached the age of eighteen of age, except in cases of intentional infliction of damage or infliction of damage in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other toxic intoxication, or if the damage was caused as a result of a crime or

administrative misconduct, when an employee can be held fully liable before reaching the age of eighteen (Article 242 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Article 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation contains an exhaustive list of grounds when full material liability of employees may occur. It takes place in the following cases:

• 1) when, in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or other federal laws, the employee is held liable in full for damage caused to the employer in the performance of labor duties by the employee;
• 2) shortage of valuables entrusted to the employee on the basis of a special written agreement or received by him under a one-time document;
• 3) intentional infliction of damage;
• 4) infliction of damage in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other toxic intoxication;
• 5) causing damage as a result of the criminal actions of the employee, established by a court verdict;
• 6) causing damage as a result of an administrative offense, if such is established by the relevant state body;
• 7) disclosure of information constituting a legally protected secret (state, official, commercial or other), in cases provided for by federal laws;
• 8) infliction of damage not in the performance of labor duties by the employee.

In connection with the foregoing, the following case on a claim for full compensation for damage is of interest.

On May 20, 2003, the decision of the justice of the peace dated May 7, 2003 came into force on the recovery from the GU-UPF of the Russian Federation for the city of Moscow and the Moscow Region in favor of R. in compensation for damage caused by a road accident, 48 thousand 559 rubles. 14 kop. This decision states that on March 21, 2003, the accident occurred due to the fact that a VAZ 21213 car belonging to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, driven by K., drove into the oncoming traffic lane, where a collision occurred with a Volkswagen car. Passat, owned by R. The driver K. lost control of the car, which caused the accident. On May 20, 2003, the Pension Fund, as the owner of a source of increased danger, compensated R. for the damage in full, in connection with which a recourse claim was brought against driver K. for the entire amount of damage.

Satisfying the recourse claim in full, the court, when making a decision, was guided by the provisions of Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which states that the person who compensated for the harm caused by another person (an employee in the performance of his official, official or other labor duties, a person who managed vehicle, etc.), has the right to claim back (recourse) against this person in the amount of the compensation paid.

However, in paragraph 1 of Art. 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation there is an indication that the amount of the compensation paid is collected in a recourse order, unless a different amount is established by law.

In this case, the court did not apply the proper law - the norms of Sec. XI Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the liability of the parties to the employment contract.

On October 8, 2001, K. was hired as a driver in the department for the delivery of pensions in the Main Directorate of the UPF of the Russian Federation No. 32 for Moscow and the Moscow Region. The car on which he worked and committed a traffic accident was assigned to him on July 12, 2002 in accordance with the order of the employer No. 57. His average earnings before filing a claim was 7,792 rubles.

By virtue of Art. 241 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for the damage caused, the employee is liable within the limits of his average monthly earnings, unless otherwise provided by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or other federal laws. Articles 242 and 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establish the conditions for full liability. The available materials of the case do not support such conditions. The court did not cite in its decision the norms of labor law, on the basis of which a recourse claim for compensation for damage caused in the performance of labor duties should be compensated in full. Thus, imposing on K. the obligation to compensate for the damage caused by a car accident in the performance of his labor duties in full is not based on the law.

The decision of the justice of the peace of the 269th judicial district of the Shatura judicial district of the Moscow region of June 9, 2003 was canceled, the case was sent for a new trial to the same court.

Certain features have labor disputes on collective (brigade) liability for damage.

Issues of collective (brigade) liability are regulated primarily by Art. 245 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Plenum

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its decision of November 16, 2006 No. 52 (p. 14) explains that the court considering the claim for damages under Art. 245 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to check whether the employer has complied with the rules for establishing collective (team) liability provided by law. Article 245 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation allows us to formulate the following rules and conditions for the legitimacy of establishing collective (team) liability:

• - joint performance by employees of certain types of work related to the storage, processing, sale (vacation), transportation, use or other use of the values ​​transferred to them;
• - the impossibility of delimiting the responsibility of each employee for causing damage and concluding an agreement with him on compensation for damage in full;
• - the conclusion of a written agreement on collective liability between the employer and all members of the team (team).

Under an agreement on collective (brigade) material liability, values ​​are entrusted to a predetermined group of persons, which is fully liable for their shortage.

At present, the only existing method for calculating the amount of damage to be compensated by each member of the brigade is contained in the order of the Ministry of Trade of the USSR dated August 19, 1982 No. 169 "Instructions on the procedure for applying in state trade the legislation governing the liability of workers and employees for damage caused to an enterprise, institution , organizations". The damage subject to compensation caused by the collective (team) to the employer is distributed among its members in proportion to the monthly tariff rate (official salary) and actually worked time for the period from the last inventory to the day the damage was discovered (clause 7.3 of the order).

The amount of compensation for damage by each member of the team (team) can be represented as the following formula:

where P1 is the amount of compensation for damage by a member of the team (team); C - the amount of damage caused by the team (team); Z1, 32, ..., W n - wages of members of the team (team) for the inter-inventory period according to salaries, taking into account the hours worked.

On a specific example, it is possible to show how the amount of compensation for damage is calculated for each member of the team (team).

So, in CJSC "Stroymontazh" a shortage of 50,000 rubles was revealed. A team of four people, with which an agreement on collective liability was concluded, was found guilty of the damage. The last inventory was carried out two months ago.

The calculation of the amount of damages to be compensated by each member of the team is given in the table.

Name of team members	Wages for the three-month post-inventory period, rub.	Calculation of the amount of damages to be compensated, rub.	The amount of reimbursable damage, rub.
Ivanov A. N.		(50,000 × 60,000) : :(60,000 + 45,000 + +80,000 + 65,000)
Krasnov I.V.		(50,000 × 45,000) : :(60,000 + 45,000 + +80,000 + 65,000)
Prokhorov O.S.		(50,000 × 80,000) : :(60,000 + 45,000 + +80,000 + 65,000)
Tomin V. M.		(50,000 × 65,000): :(60,000 + 45,000 + +80,000 + 65,000)

Thus, collective (team) liability is a shared form of compensation for damage.

When resolving a labor dispute on compensation for damage caused by the team (team), the court has the right to reduce the amount of debt for individual members of the team (team). At the same time, it should be taken into account that a reduction in the amount of the penalty from one or more members of the team (team) cannot serve as a basis for a corresponding increase in the amount of the penalty from other members of the team (team) (paragraph 16 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 16, 2006 No. 52).

The court needs to check whether all members of the team (team) who worked during the period of the damage were sued. If the claim is not brought against all members of the team (team), the court, based on Art. 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, is entitled, on its own initiative, to involve them in the case as third parties who do not make independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute, on the side of the defendant, since the correct determination of the individual responsibility of each member of the team (team) depends on this.

In case of voluntary compensation for damage, the degree of guilt of each employee of the team is determined by agreement between all members of the specified unit and the employer.

The procedure for determining the amount of damage caused to the employer is established by Art. 246 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The amount of damage caused to the employer in the event of loss and damage to property is determined by actual losses calculated on the basis of market prices in force in the area on the day the damage was caused, but not lower than the value of the property according to accounting data, taking into account the degree of depreciation of this property. Thus, the amount of damage must be documented by the employer's credentials.

Regarding the application of Art. 246 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its resolution of November 16, 2006 No. 52 (p. 13) gave the following explanations.

As a general rule, the amount of damage caused is determined by actual losses calculated on the basis of market prices in force in the area on the day the damage was caused. In cases where it is impossible to establish the day of damage, the employer has the right to calculate the amount of damage on the day of its discovery.

If during the time the case is being considered in court, the amount of damage caused to the employer by the loss or damage to property changes due to an increase or decrease in market prices, the court is not entitled to satisfy the employer’s claim for compensation by the employee for damage in a larger amount or the employee’s claim for damages in a smaller amount, than it was determined on the day of its infliction (discovery), since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for such a possibility.

The federal law may establish a special procedure for determining the amount of damage to be compensated caused to the employer by theft, deliberate damage, shortage or loss of certain types of property and other valuables, as well as in other cases when the actual amount of damage caused exceeds its nominal amount.

Before making a decision on compensation for damages by specific employees, the employer is obliged to conduct an audit to determine the amount of damage caused and the reasons for its occurrence. To conduct such an audit, the employer has the right to create a commission with the participation of specialists.

Requesting a written explanation from the employee to establish the cause of the damage is mandatory.

The audit materials must without fail contain:

• - receipt documents Money under the report on each fact of shortage, waste, etc.;
• - copies of the employment contract and the contract on full liability, if any;
• - copies of the order on hiring the employee and his job description;
• - documents confirming the expenditure of funds;
• - report on the expenditure of funds;
• - certificate of accounting on the average monthly earnings of the employee;
• – documents on the basis of which a conclusion is made about the presence of a shortage, damage, theft, fraud, abuse, etc.;
• - an act of inventory, financial and accounting check, audit report or audit, if any;
• - an explanatory note of the accountable person describing the fact of waste (shortage, unjustified spending of money and other funds) indicating the place, time, dates, witnesses, guilty persons;
• - explanatory notes of other persons involved in this episode;
• - official (report) notes of the person who issued the valuables, about the amounts or material values ​​​​issued under the report and their shortage;
• – certificate-calculation of the shortage, signed by the chief accountant and the head of the structural unit;
• – the final act on the results of the investigation of the person who conducted the investigation, signed, dated and the relevant management resolution.

The employee and (or) his representative has the right to get acquainted with all the materials of the audit and appeal them in the manner prescribed by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The procedure for recovering damages from an employee by an employer depends on a number of factors, including primarily the amount of damage.

Employees who are guilty of causing damage will be explained the procedure for its compensation and are invited to compensate the damage in whole or in part voluntarily.

Voluntary compensation for damage is applied in cases convenient for both the employee and the employer, and can be carried out different ways: the transfer of equivalent property, the correction of damaged, the payment of appropriate amounts of money to the employer's cash desk, etc. As indicated in clause 17 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 16, 2006 No. to transfer equivalent property to the plaintiff as compensation for damage or to repair damaged property, is decided by the court based on the circumstances of the case and taking into account the observance of the rights and interests of both parties.

In the event that an employee refuses voluntary compensation damage caused through his fault, this damage is recovered by force of the employer or the court.

Compensation for damage in an amount not exceeding the average monthly salary of an employee is made by order of the employer by deduction from the salary of the person causing the damage. The employer must make such an order no later than one month from the date of the final determination of the amount of damage caused by the employee (part 1 of article 248 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If the employer has not made the relevant order within the specified period, then he can recover from the employee the damage caused only in court.

If the one-month period has expired or the employee does not agree to voluntarily compensate for the damage caused to the employer, and the amount of damage to be recovered from the employee exceeds his average earnings, then recovery can only be carried out by the court.

Compensation for damages is made regardless of bringing the employee to disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability for actions or inaction that caused damage to the employer.

When the employer makes deductions from the employee's wages to compensate for the damage caused, it should be borne in mind that these deductions should not exceed the limits established by Art. 138 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, the total amount of all deductions for each payment of wages cannot exceed 20%, and in cases provided for by federal laws, 50% of the wages due to the employee. In the case of deductions from wages under several executive documents, the employee must in any case be retained 50% of wages.

In accordance with Art. 250 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the labor dispute resolution body may, taking into account the degree and form of guilt, the financial situation of the employee and other circumstances, reduce the amount of damage to be recovered from the employee.

Article 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of bringing an employee to liability in the event of his dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training at the expense of the employer. In this case, the employee will be obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer for his training, calculated in proportion to the time actually not worked after the end of training, unless otherwise provided by the employment contract or training agreement.

So, from Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation it follows that the right of the employer to recover from the employee the costs of his training arises only if the following conditions are met:

• 1) the employee is sent for training by the employer;
• 2) training was carried out at the expense of the employer;
• 3) the employee quit his job before the expiration of the period stipulated by the parties;
• 4) the reason for dismissal is not valid;
• 5) the condition on the obligation of the employer to pay for training, and the employee to work after training for a certain period of time is provided for by the employment contract or training agreement.

Judicial practice confirms that an employee who quit without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the agreement on targeted training of the employee at the expense of the employer is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer when sending him to training, in proportion to the time not worked.

Thus, CJSC "Kemerovo mobile communications" filed a lawsuit against citizen F. for the recovery of costs associated with the training of an employee, motivating his claim by the fact that on September 3, 2001, F. was hired by CJSC "Kemerovo mobile communications" as a maintenance engineer technological systems. On January 23, 2003, a training agreement was concluded with him, according to which CJSC undertook to pay for F.'s education (3,211 euros and travel expenses in the amount of 11,232 rubles), and F., having completed training, had to work at CJSC Kemerovo mobile communication" for at least three years, in case of dismissal before the expiration of this period - to reimburse the costs associated with training. Since F. did not fulfill the terms of the contract and quit, the joint-stock company asked to recover 93,793 rubles from him. 31 kop. for training, 11,232 rubles. travel expenses and the amount of state duty.

By the decision of the Zavodskoy District Court of the city of Kemerovo of January 27, 2005, the claim was satisfied. The decision of the court was not challenged on cassation.

In the supervisory appeal, F. requested that this decision be annulled and that the case be sent for a new trial to the court of first instance.

By the decision of the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 11, 2005, the case was requested to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, having considered on November 28, 2005 the case demanded on the basis of F.'s supervisory complaint, refused to transfer it for consideration on the merits to the supervisory court, stating the following.

In accordance with Art. 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the grounds for canceling or changing judicial decisions of lower courts by way of supervision are significant violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law.

There were no such violations in the decision of the district court.

It was established that on January 23, 2003, Kemerovo Mobile Communications CJSC (Enterprise) and citizen F. (Employee) concluded an agreement on targeted training and mutual obligations, according to which the Enterprise undertook to pay for the training of the Employee, and the Employee had to undergo training on a paid basis. basis on the job at the expense of the Enterprise in accordance with the terms of the contract.

By virtue of clause 4.3 of the said agreement, after completing the training course, F. undertook to work at Kemerovo Mobile Communications CJSC for at least three years, and in case of dismissal before the expiration of this period, to reimburse all the costs of the company for his education.

The defendant did not fulfill the terms of the contract, according to which he had to work for the plaintiff for at least three years after training, and resigned of his own free will.

According to Art. 249 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee is obliged to reimburse the costs incurred by the employer when sending him for training at the expense of the employer, in the event of dismissal without good reason before the expiration of the period stipulated by the employment contract or agreement on training the employee at the expense of the employer.

On the basis of this provision, the court correctly satisfied the claim.

The amount of expenses incurred by the plaintiff for the training of the defendant is due to the said contract, which has not been contested or invalidated by anyone.