The year 2025 has witnessed the continued transformation of Ukrainian labor legislation under the influence of prolonged martial law, digitalization of processes, mobilization, and the adaptation of businesses to flexible forms of employment. Both employers and employees have found themselves in new realities that require not only an understanding of statutory regulations but also up-to-date judicial practice.
In particular, under martial law, the Law of Ukraine dated 15 March 2022 “On the Organization of Labor Relations under Martial Law” remains in force. Together with the provisions of the Labor Code of Ukraine (LCU), it defines the specific features of labor relations regardless of the employer’s form of ownership or type of activity.
This article analyzes three key areas of 2025:
- dismissals of employees;
- mobilization;
- remote work
— taking into account the latest case law of the Supreme Court.
1. Dismissals under Martial Law: Supreme Court Practice in 2025
Judicial practice in 2025 confirms that martial law does not grant employers the right to apply simplified dismissal procedures. The legal grounds for dismissal must be lawful, and the established procedure must be duly observed.
• Dismissal by mutual agreement during temporary incapacity for work
In case No. 522/2588/23, the Supreme Court clarified that dismissal by mutual agreement cannot be formalized during an employee’s temporary incapacity for work. If, on the agreed date, the employee was on sick leave, the lawful date of termination of employment relations is the first working day following the end of the incapacity period.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/124629922
• Dismissal for absenteeism during wartime
In case No. 201/4727/24, the Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of dismissal for absenteeism (unauthorized absence from work), even though the employee was abroad and had temporary protection status. The Court found that the employee was required to prove the existence of valid reasons for her absence, which she failed to do, while the employer had granted unpaid leave for 90 days.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129553827
• Resignation at the employee’s own initiative due to employer violations
In case No. 760/34080/21, the Supreme Court emphasized that, for termination under Part 3 of Article 38 of the LCU (due to violations by the employer), the employee must prove real and substantial violations. The absence of evidence constitutes grounds for dismissal of the claim.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/129526549
• Prolonged absence of an employee: application of Clause 8-3, Part 1, Article 36 of the LCU
In its ruling of 09 July 2025 in case No. 635/12429/23, the Supreme Court stated that dismissal under Clause 8-3, Part 1, Article 36 of the Labor Code of Ukraine is possible only if the employer is unaware of the reasons for the employee’s absence for more than four consecutive months. If the employee officially arranged unpaid leave and the employer issued the relevant orders, such absence is agreed upon, and dismissal is unlawful.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128780659
Thus, in 2025, the Supreme Court consistently forms a practice according to which, even during wartime, employers have no right to disregard dismissal procedures. The Court protects employees in cases of procedural violations but supports employers where the employee has failed to prove the validity of their absence or has abused their rights.
2. Mobilization of Employees in 2025: Guarantees and Practice
During martial law, issues related to employee mobilization remain among the most complex in labor law, as they pose challenges for both employees and employers. Mobilization may significantly affect operational continuity, HR policy, and financial planning. The key legal provision governing guarantees for mobilized employees is Article 119 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
Key guarantees for mobilized employees
• retention of the workplace and position for the entire period of military service;
• average earnings are not retained — instead, the employee receives a state monetary allowance;
• guarantees apply regardless of the type of employment contract (fixed-term or open-ended), including officers of business entities.
When is dismissal of a mobilized employee possible?
Dismissal is permitted only at the employee’s own initiative:
• at the employee’s own request (Article 38 of the LCU);
• by mutual agreement of the parties (Clause 1, Article 36 of the LCU) — exclusively on the basis of a written application submitted by the employee.
Any other grounds for dismissal during the period of service are unlawful.
Judicial practice on mobilization
In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court confirms that:
• failure to notify the employer of mobilization does not cancel the guarantees provided by Article 119 of the LCU;
• guarantees under Article 119 of the LCU apply from the moment of actual enlistment or deployment for service;
• corporate officers do not lose these guarantees solely due to their corporate status.
Retention of average earnings: until when?
Initially, employers were required to retain the average earnings of mobilized employees. However, as of 19 July 2022, this obligation was abolished by law, and employers no longer bear it. Compensation is provided by the state through monetary allowance mechanisms.
Judicial practice in 2025 confirms the maximum level of protection for mobilized employees. Dismissal of such persons is allowed only at their own initiative. Any attempts by employers to dismiss mobilized employees without lawful grounds are deemed unlawful.
3. Remote Work under Martial Law: Rules and Judicial Practice
The pandemic and the war have firmly established remote work as one of the most demanded forms of employment. The year 2025 was no exception.
General rules of remote work
• remote work is established by written agreement of the parties (employee’s application + employer’s order);
• if necessary, a separate contract is concluded (the standard form was approved by Order of the Ministry of Economy dated 05 May 2021 No. 913-21);
• such a regime is possible only if the nature of job duties allows for remote performance.
Amendments, in particular to Articles 60² and 121 of the LCU, clarified:
• notification of location in the event of a business trip;
• the possibility of remote work during a child’s distance learning with the employer’s consent;
• other procedures governing interaction between the parties.
Practice of 2025: remote work as a right, not a guarantee
Case No. 751/3178/25 (07 May 2025):
An IT department employee was dismissed for absenteeism after leaving Ukraine. The Court confirmed that:
• leaving the country due to war is not, in itself, a valid reason;
• remote work and unpaid leave are a right, not an obligation, of the employer;
• where job functions require physical presence, absenteeism constitutes lawful grounds for dismissal.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/131545139
Case No. 473/6767/24 (24 March 2025):
The claimant challenged the refusal to conclude a remote work agreement. The Court found that:
• the specifics of the position do not allow for a remote format;
• a recommendation of the selection committee does not oblige the employer to conclude a contract;
• employment relations were not established.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/128685711
Absenteeism of a remote employee
According to the ruling of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated 06 June 2024 in case No. 367/569/23:
• lack of communication by a remote employee does not automatically constitute absenteeism;
• the employer must prove that:
• the employee did not actually perform work;
• agreed means of communication existed;
• the employee was aware of the established communication procedure.
• until the circumstances are clarified, employment relations remain in force, but the period of absence is not paid and is not included in the length of service.
More details are available in the text of the ruling at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/119653141
Thus, the year 2025 has demonstrated a significant renewal of labor relations in Ukraine caused by martial law, digitalization, and changes in approaches to work organization. Judicial practice and legislation focus on three key areas: dismissals, employee mobilization, and remote work.
In the area of dismissals, the Supreme Court has confirmed that even during wartime, employers are obliged to strictly comply with the procedures established by the Labor Code of Ukraine.
Regarding mobilization, Supreme Court practice confirms the maximum level of protection of servicemen’s labor rights. Article 119 of the LCU guarantees the retention of the workplace and position for the entire period of service, and dismissal of a mobilized employee is possible only at their own initiative.
In the field of remote work, Law No. 4339-IX clarified the procedure for its application, but the principle remains unchanged: remote or home-based work arrangements are possible only with the employer’s consent.
Thus, labor law in 2025 combines strict compliance with the classical guarantees provided by the Labor Code of Ukraine with the need to adapt to the conditions of martial law. This ensures a balance between the interests of employees fulfilling their duty to the state and employers who must maintain the stability of business processes despite staffing challenges.