The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, realizing the competence of the Supreme Court as defined by law to ensure consistent, stable, equal and understandable law enforcement when considering disputes, has adopted a number of decisions that are of great importance in law enforcement practice. I bring to your attention some of them concerning labor relations.

  1. The Grand Chamber, by a resolution in 09/15/2020, in case No. 205/4196/18 departed from the legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the application of the provisions of part 3 of Article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, having determined that an employee cannot be dismissed during a period of temporary incapacity for work, as well as during the vacation, in case of termination of the employment contract under paragraph 8 of the part 1 of Article 36 of the Labor Code, that is, on the grounds provided for by the contract. In case of violation of this guarantee, the negative consequences should be eliminated by changing the date of the employee’s dismissal.
  2. According to the ruling in 10/13/2020, in case No. 712/9213/18, the Grand Chamber departed from the legal opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court on the procedure for extending annual leave in case of temporary disability of an employee, having determined that the continuation of annual leave in case of temporary disability of the employee, certified in the prescribed manner, which occurred during the vacation, occurs automatically and does not need coordination with the owner or his authorized body. To extend the vacation, the employee just needs to notify the employer about his desire to extend the vacation for the period immediately following the day of the termination of temporary disability, about the presence of a certificate of incapacity for work.
  3. The jurisdiction of disputes on the claim of the owner (participant, shareholder) against an official for compensation for losses caused to a legal entity by the actions or inaction of an official is determined in the course of economic proceedings, regardless of the existence of labor relations between them. In this case, the owner (participant, shareholder) of the legal entity is the representative of the legal entity in such a dispute in accordance with the rule of law (legal representation), and for such representation he does not need other legal grounds (agreement or power of attorney). This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber in a ruling dated 04/14/2020 in case No. 910/12217/19.
  4. A dispute between the dismissed head of a legal entity (a member of its executive body) and this legal entity, its owner regarding the legality of termination of an employment contract with him on the grounds provided for by the Labor Code, except for such termination under paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 41 of the Labor Code (termination of powers ) is subject to consideration in civil proceedings. This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber in a judgment of 09/15/2020, in case No. 205/4196/18.
  5. The compensation provided for in Article 117 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, aimed at compensating the employee for property losses that he incurs as a result of untimely settlement with him by the employer, is charged in the manner specifically provided for labor relations for the entire period of such failure, including after making a judgment. This conclusion is set out in the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in 05/13/2020, in case No. 810/451/17.
  6. In the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in 01/12/2021, in case No. 127/21764/17, a legal conclusion was made that the dispute related to the exercise by the general meeting of members of a public organization of the right to manage a legal entity, namely the dismissal the chairman of a public organization from the performance of duties, should be considered according to the rules of economic proceedings. According to the said decision, the Grand Chamber departed from the legal opinion of the Grand Chamber set out in the decision 05/30/2018 in case No. 916/978/17 (proceedings No. 12-100gs18). The legal conclusion in case No. 916/978/17 was that legal relations between members of a public organization and the organization itself are not corporate, and therefore disputes arising from such legal relations do not fall within the jurisdiction of economic courts. However, as follows from the resolution in 12.01.2021, the Grand Chamber has consistently developed in a large number of decisions the criteria for distinguishing cases between civil and economic jurisdiction, recognizing the jurisdiction of the economic court in cases between participants (founders, shareholders, members) of a legal entity related to the creation, activities, management or termination of activities of such a legal entity. These cases, in particular, include: No 752/10984/14-c, No 145/1885/15-c, No 921/36/18, No 915/540/16, No 361/17/15-c, No. 452/970/17, No. 825/1475/16.
X

Order a call

Our specialist will contact you and give detailed information on your questions.



09
:
00
+38(999)999-99-99
We will answer you soon