Individual labor disputes. bodies for their consideration. Consideration of individual labor disputes

29.09.2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A court settlement agreement must meet certain requirements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labor law of Russia. Cheat sheet Victoria Evgenievna Rezepova

INDIVIDUAL LABOR DISPUTES. BODIES FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION

Individual labor dispute– unresolved disagreements between the employer and the employee on the application of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, collective agreements, agreements, local regulations, employment contracts (including on the establishment or change of individual working conditions), which are stated to the body for consideration of individual labor disputes.

The parties to an individual labor dispute are the employee and the employer. Current legislation provides for several ways to resolve individual labor disputes. This is the consideration and resolution of labor disputes in the labor dispute commission (LCC); in court, bypassing the CCC, and in a special procedure, when the dispute is resolved in a higher authority.

Individual labor disputes are considered by the CCC and the courts if the employee, independently or with the participation of his representative, does not resolve disagreements during direct negotiations with the employer. The regulatory framework governing the procedure for considering individual labor disputes is labor legislation, and the procedure for considering cases of labor disputes in the courts is determined by the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.

KTS– a body for resolving individual labor disputes arising in an organization or its division. The CCC considers disputes about transfers to another job, the application of other contract terms, the individual standard and working hours, the duration and use by the employee of the rest due to him, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, wages and other disputes.

CTCs are formed at the initiative of employees and (or) the employer from an equal number of representatives of employees and the employer. Employee representatives to the labor dispute commission are elected by the general meeting (conference) of the organization's employees or are delegated by the representative body of employees with subsequent approval at the general meeting (conference) of the organization's employees. Representatives of the employer are appointed to the commission by the head of the organization. Organizational and technical support for the activities of the CTS is provided by the employer. The CCC elects a chairman and secretary of the commission from among its members.

An employee can apply to the CCC within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. If the established deadline is missed for valid reasons, the CCC may restore it and resolve the dispute on the merits.

From book Commercial law author Gorbukhov V A

From the book Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Text with changes and additions as of October 1, 2009. author author unknown

From the book Federal Law “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation.” Text with changes and additions for 2009 author author unknown

From the book Labor Law of Russia: Textbook author Orlovsky Yuri Petrovich

Article 70. Bodies for consideration of individual official disputes 1. Individual official disputes (hereinafter referred to as official disputes) are considered by the following bodies for consideration of individual official disputes (hereinafter referred to as bodies for consideration of official

From the book Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Text with changes and additions as of September 10, 2010. author Team of authors

CHAPTER XIV. LABOR DISPUTES § 1. Concept and types of labor disputes1. Labor relations objectively presuppose the existence of a conflict, since in the labor process heterogeneous factors of production, alienated from each other, are combined (the presence of alienation of labor power (labor)

From the book Commercial Law author Golovanov Nikolay Mikhailovich

Article 382. Bodies for consideration of individual labor disputes Individual labor disputes are considered by commissions on labor disputes and

From the book Encyclopedia of Lawyer author author unknown

Article 397. Limitation of the reverse recovery of amounts paid by decision of the bodies considering individual labor disputes. Reverse recovery from the employee of the amounts paid to him in accordance with the decision of the body considering the individual labor dispute, when

From the book Labor Law author Petrenko Andrey Vitalievich

17. Individual entrepreneurs The legal status of an individual entrepreneur is characterized by the following points. Entrepreneurial activity citizens, carried out without forming a legal entity, is regulated mainly by the same legal

From the book How and where to write a complaint correctly in order to assert your rights by Nadezhdina Vera

From the book The Bar Exam by the author

16. Labor disputes

From the book Driver's Rights 2014. How to resist an unscrupulous traffic cop? With a table of penalties author Usoltsev Dmitry Alexandrovich

Chapter 16. Typical labor disputes Recently, the most frequent cases of labor disputes are related to the lack of proper protection of the rights of the employee, which are a direct consequence of improper registration of labor relations, namely: work performed “orally”

From the book Jurisprudence author Mardaliev R. T.

Question 128. The constitutional right of citizens to associate in trade unions. Procedure for conducting collective bargaining. Concept, parties, content and procedure for concluding a collective agreement. Collective labor disputes: concept, moment of the beginning of collective

From the book Labor Law of Russia. Crib author Rezepova Victoria Evgenievna

Individual characteristics when intoxicated The question may arise: why is the medical examination process so complicated, because the subjectivity and bias of the doctor can be eliminated simply by measuring the amount of alcohol in the blood, the device will not lie. For what

From the book Law. 10–11 grade. Basic and advanced levels author Nikitina Tatyana Isaakovna

5.3. Responsibility of the employee. Labor disputes Legal regulation of disciplinary liability An employee must properly perform labor duties and comply with internal labor regulations, which is included in the concept of labor discipline.B

From the author's book

COLLECTIVE LABOR DISPUTES: TYPES, GENERAL RULES FOR RESOLUTION Collective labor dispute is an unresolved disagreement between employees (their representatives) and employers (their representatives) regarding the establishment and change of working conditions (including wages)

From the author's book

§ 59. Labor disputes. Responsibility under labor law Labor disputes are divided into individual and collective. The right to individual and collective labor disputes is recognized using the methods for resolving them established by federal law,

100 RUR bonus for first order

Select job type Graduate work Course work Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test Monograph Problem Solving Business Plan Answers to Questions Creative work Essay Drawing Works Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Master's thesis Laboratory work Online help

Find out the price

Labor dispute– disagreements between subjects of labor law regarding the application of labor legislation or the establishment of new working conditions in a partnership that have been submitted for resolution by the jurisdictional body.

Current legislation provides for several ways to resolve individual labor disputes– consideration and resolution of labor disputes in the labor dispute commission (LCC); in court, bypassing the CCC, and in a special procedure, when the dispute is resolved in a higher authority. Individual labor disputes are considered by the CCC and the courts if the employee, independently or with the participation of his representative, does not resolve disagreements during direct negotiations with the employer. The regulatory framework governing the procedure for considering individual labor disputes is labor legislation, and the procedure for considering cases of labor disputes in the courts is determined by the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.

The CCC considers disputes about transfers to another job, the application of other terms of the contract, about individual norms and working hours, about the duration and use by the employee of the rest he is entitled to, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, about remuneration, etc.

CTCs are formed at the initiative of employees and (or) the employer from an equal number of representatives of employees and the employer. Employee representatives to the labor dispute commission are elected by the general meeting of employees of the organization. Representatives of the employer are appointed to the commission by the head of the organization. Organizational and technical support for the activities of the CTS is provided by the employer. The CCC from its composition includes the chairman and secretary of the commission.

An employee can appeal within 3 months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right. If the established deadline is missed for valid reasons, the CCC may restore it and resolve the dispute on the merits.

Procedure for resolving collective labor disputes

Conciliation commission created by the parties themselves from an equal number of their representatives on an equal basis. It must be formed within three working days from the moment the collective labor dispute begins and formalized by an order of the employer and a decision of the employee representative. The employer does not have the right to evade its creation and participation in its work and is obliged to create the necessary conditions for its work. The conciliation commission must consider the dispute within five working days from the date of issuance of the order on its creation. From among its members, the commission selects a chairman and a secretary by open vote, but they must be from different parties. The commission is obliged to use all opportunities at its disposal to resolve the collective labor dispute that has arisen.

If the parties do not reach an agreement in the conciliation commission, then they continue conciliation procedures with the participation of a mediator or in labor arbitration, as they agree on it.

Consideration of a collective labor dispute with the participation of a mediator by agreement of the parties, a mediator is invited on the recommendation of the service for the settlement of collective labor disputes (hereinafter simply the Service) or independently of it. And if within three working days from the moment of contacting the Service the parties do not come to an agreement on the candidacy of the mediator, then he is appointed by the Service. The mediator determines the procedure for considering a collective labor dispute with his participation by agreement with the disputing parties. A mediator is a neutral third party in relation to the disputing parties and is intended to help them reach an agreement. He must consider the dispute within seven calendar days from the date of his invitation (appointment). This consideration ends with the adoption of an agreed decision in writing, and if agreement is not reached, the drawing up of a protocol of disagreements.

If an agreement between the parties on the dispute is not reached and a protocol of disagreements is drawn up, then from that moment the parties turn to the third stage of conciliation procedures - labor arbitration.

Labor arbitration is a temporary body for resolving a specific collective labor dispute. It is created by the parties to the dispute and the Service no later than three working days from the end of the consideration of the dispute by the conciliation commission or with the participation of a mediator.

It is formed by three labor arbitrators recommended by the Service or proposed by the parties to a collective labor dispute. The labor arbitration panel should not include representatives of the parties to the dispute.

The corresponding decision of the employer, employee representative and the Service formalizes the creation of a labor arbitration tribunal, its personnel, regulations and its powers.

Labor arbitration may meet more than once during this five-day period. He considers requests from the parties, receives the necessary documents and information relating to the collective labor dispute. If necessary, he informs the authorities state power and local governments about the possible social consequences of a collective labor dispute. The labor arbitration ends the consideration of the dispute by developing recommendations on the merits of the dispute in writing. These recommendations are communicated to the parties. They become binding on the parties if the parties have entered into a written agreement on their implementation.

We talked about the types of labor disputes in ours. We will talk about the consideration and resolution of individual labor disputes in this material.

The concept of an individual labor dispute

An individual labor dispute is an unresolved disagreement on labor issues that has arisen between an employer and an employee, and these disagreements have been reported to the body for the consideration of individual labor disputes (Part 1 of Article 381 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Labor issues, which become the subject of individual labor disputes, may relate to the application of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, labor or collective agreements, agreements, local regulations.

The bodies for consideration of individual labor disputes are...

Who considers individual labor disputes? The general procedure for considering individual labor disputes under the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for 2 instances. Thus, individual labor disputes are considered (Article 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation):

labor dispute commissions;
by courts.

In this case, the employee himself decides whether to contact the commission first, and go to court only if he disagrees with its decision, or immediately file an application with the court (Part 1 of Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

It must be taken into account that in some cases it is used exclusively judicial procedure resolution of individual labor disputes. This means that the commission is not approached to resolve such a dispute. Individual labor disputes are always considered in the courts when resolving, in particular, issues such as (Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation):

refusal to hire;
reinstatement at work;
changing the date and wording of the reason for dismissal;
discrimination at work;
claims of persons working under an employment contract for employers - individuals who are not individual entrepreneurs;
disagreements between employees of religious organizations and their employers;
payment for forced absence;
unlawful actions (inaction) of the employer when processing and protecting the employee’s personal data;
compensation by the employee for damage caused to the employer.

The procedure for considering individual labor disputes is regulated by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, other federal laws, and the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (Article 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Time limit for applying for dispute resolution

An employee has the right to appeal to the labor dispute commission within 3 months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. In this case, the commission can consider the dispute even after the end of the three-month period, if this period was missed for valid reasons (Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If an individual labor dispute has not been considered by the labor dispute commission within 10 days, the employee has the right to transfer the dispute to court. An employee can go to court even after the dispute has been considered by the labor dispute commission, if he wants to appeal its decision. The employee is given 10 days to do this from the date of delivery of a copy of the commission’s decision (Article 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

As for going directly to court, the employee is generally given 3 months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his rights. If this is a dispute about dismissal, the period for going to court is 1 month from the date the employee was given a copy of the dismissal order or from the date the work book was issued.

In disputes regarding non-payment or incomplete payment of wages and other payments, the right to go to court is retained by the employee for 1 year from the date of payment of the specified amounts. The employer is also given a year if he wants to go to court for compensation by the employee for damage caused to the employer. The period here is calculated from the date of discovery of such damage.

It must be taken into account that deadlines missed for good reasons can be reinstated by the court (Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In this case, the court does not have the right to refuse to accept the statement of claim due to missing the deadline (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The legislation does not precisely define the procedure for holding a meeting of the CCC, and although it does not indicate the right of challenge, it does not prohibit it either. Therefore, the applicant and the employer have the right to make a reasoned challenge to any member of the commission at the beginning of the CCC meeting. The issue of recusal is decided by a majority of the members of the CCC present. A meeting of the CCC is considered competent if at least half of each party’s members of the commission are present at it, and in an equal number of representatives of employees and the employer. The CCC should not copy the court, and witnesses can be present at the commission's meeting from beginning to end. The meeting of the commission is held openly, anyone can attend it, and anyone can be heard on the circumstances of the dispute. The decision of the CCC is made by secret ballot.

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

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

The decision of the CCC can be appealed by the employee or employer to the court within 10 days from the date of delivery of a copy of the decision to them.

Missing this deadline is not grounds for the court to refuse to accept the application. The court at a meeting can restore it if the deadline is missed for a good reason, and consider the dispute on the merits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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