Reinstatement at work labor inspection. How to be reinstated at work as ordered by the labor inspectorate. The courts also believe that the state labor inspectorate has the authority to reinstate workers at work by sending the employer a notice

Monitoring the implementation of the norms and provisions of labor law is assigned, in accordance with Art. 353 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, to the State Labor Inspectorate. Employees have the right to file complaints to this supervisory body when labor rights and interests are violated by the employer.

Often, during a staff reduction or liquidation of an enterprise, a manager, reducing paperwork and personnel work, may dismiss an employee inappropriately, which is a gross violation of labor law. Then the employee can file a complaint with the labor inspectorate at the place of registration of the employer.

Within one month from the date of receipt of the request, inspectors will check the actions taken by the employer. If they find these violations, an order for reinstatement will be issued based on the decision of the labor inspectorate. In addition, the employer is obliged to issue the employee a salary for a given period, which is calculated based on the employee’s average income before dismissal.

Compliance with the instructions of the labor inspectorate

In accordance with the provisions set out in Art. 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the decision on reinstatement at work is subject to immediate execution. If completion is delayed due to the fault of the employer, he compensates the employee for days of forced downtime in the amount of the average salary or pays him the difference. However, in addition to the fact that there is reinstatement at work by the labor inspectorate, other options are possible:

• based on the submission of the prosecutor's office;
• by decision of a judicial authority;
• after staff reduction.

Each of them requires separate consideration.

Thus, in addition to the labor inspectorate, the employee has the right to write a complaint to the prosecutor’s office at the place of registration of the employer company. In it, he points out all possible violations and necessarily provides their evidence base. Then the prosecutor carries out an inspection at the enterprise - if these violations are detected, an order will be issued to reinstate the employee to his position. Like the decision of the labor inspectorate, it is subject to immediate implementation.

If reinstatement at work is carried out through the court, then the employee must contact this body no later than 1 month from the date of illegal dismissal. This period begins to count from the day the order is delivered to him.

The judicial authority considers such cases on the merits, but the employee must himself collect evidence of illegal dismissal and present it along with the application. In this case, the employee must comply with all personnel procedures upon dismissal - for example, sign the familiarization order.

The signature does not mean that he agrees with the order, but that he has familiarized himself with it. A copy of the order can be kept by the employee, as well as other documentation related to his work activity and subsequent dismissal. The employer has no right to prohibit this.

Features of recovery after reduction

Staff reduction is a fairly common reason for dismissal, and the procedure itself is very lengthy. The employer and personnel officer have the obligation to prepare a huge amount of documentation, which gives rise to so many violations of labor legislation. Employees dismissed in this way have the right to file a complaint with the labor inspectorate, court or prosecutor's office.

Article 179 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulates the categories of employees who have preferential rights at work during layoffs. If the employer did not take this right into account, then they can write a complaint. In the provisions set out in Art. 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is stated that the execution of court decisions on reinstatement to a position is subject to immediate execution by the employer. The requirement is considered satisfied if the employee is reinstated at his previous job or the dismissal order is canceled.

The employer must follow the following algorithm of actions when reinstating employees:

• issuing an order to cancel the decision to dismiss the employee;
• familiarization of the employee with the order against signature;
• making appropriate changes to the work book;
• actual admission of an employee to perform his direct functions.

These actions should be carried out no later than the first working day from the moment the employer receives a writ of execution or a decision of a judicial authority.

Most problems usually arise in the case of reinstatement at work by court decision if the position has been reduced. Then the employer should issue another order that a new position is being introduced into the staffing table.

At the same time, wages should not be lower than they were before the reduction. In addition, the employer should pay the employee compensation for forced absences. Payments are made based on average earnings before layoffs.

Experienced lawyers of our company will provide competent assistance in resolving such issues. We will not only advise and inform, but also represent the interests of our customers when contacting higher authorities, regulatory authorities, courts and the prosecutor's office. Our lawyers have extensive experience in the labor field, so they offer comprehensive and effective solutions. Contact us!

Judge Bychkov A.V.

Case No. 33-1730

Definition

Judicial panel for civil cases of the Moscow City Court, composed of presiding Zakharova E.A.

judges Davydova I.N. and Neretina E.N.

under secretary Bondarenko K.V.

having heard in open court the report of judge Davydova I.N.

case on the cassation appeal of Zelenogradstroy LLC against the decision of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated October 28, 2010, which decided:

In satisfying the application of Firma Zelenogradstroy LLC to challenge paragraphs. 12.17 orders of the state labor inspector of the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/2 dated May 14, 2010 - refuse,

INSTALLED:

LLC "Firm Zelenogradstroy" filed a claim with the court to challenge paragraphs. 12, 17 of the order of the state labor inspector of the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/2 dated May 14, 2010, by which the applicant undertakes to eliminate violations of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms , considering this order illegal.

State Labor Inspector in Moscow Nikiforov E.V. - the official who issued the order appeared at the court hearing and objected to the satisfaction of the application, submitting a written response.

The court made the said decision, the cancellation of which is requested by Zelenogradstroy LLC based on the arguments of the cassation appeal.

According to Part 2 of Article 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of an appeal by a trade union body, an employee or another person to the state labor inspectorate on an issue that is being considered by the relevant body for consideration of an individual or collective labor dispute (with the exception of claims accepted for consideration by the court, or issues , for which there is a court decision), the state labor inspector, upon identifying an obvious violation of labor legislation or other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, has the right to issue an order to the employer that is subject to mandatory execution.

This order may be appealed by the employer to the court within ten days from the date of its receipt by the employer or his representative.

The court found that on the basis of order No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/1 of the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow dated April 15, 2010, an unscheduled documentary inspection of compliance with labor regulations was carried out at Zelenogradstroy LLC from April 15, 2010 legislation.

In accordance with paragraphs 12 and 17 of the contested order No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/2 dated May 14, 2010 (case sheet 65-67) of the state labor inspector in Moscow at Firma LLC Zelenogradstroy" is charged with the obligation to take measures to eliminate violations of labor legislation and other regulations containing labor law norms, namely:

Compensate Ariskin B.A. in accordance with Part 1, Clause 3, Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the earnings he did not receive as a result of the employer’s delay in issuing B.A. to Ariskin. his work book and continue not to violate the deadlines for issuing work books to employees upon termination of employment contracts;

Cancel order No. 1044-k dated December 2, 2008 regarding the dismissal of B.A. Ariskin. from November 16, 2008 for absenteeism according to clause “a” clause 6 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and restore Ariskin B.A. as a third-class concrete worker. In accordance with Part 1, Clause 1, Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, compensate Ariskin B.A.

the earnings he did not receive as a result of his illegal dismissal, and also recognize the entry in the work book of B.A. Ariskin. illegal.

According to clause 3.1 of the Internal Labor Regulations, approved on June 1, 2006, the said organization established a five-day work week with two days off - Saturday and Sunday (case file 104-111).

In accordance with Article 111 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the general day off is Sunday.

By order of December 2, 2008 No. 1044-k Ariskin B.A. was dismissed on November 16, 2008 (which was a Sunday) according to clause “a” clause 6 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (absence from the workplace without good reason) on the basis of a memo from the head of contracts A.I. Serebryakova. dated November 17, 2008, according to which Ariskin B.A. subject to dismissal from November 16, 2008, since he did not show up for work on November 16, 2008. (case sheet 94-95).

In resolving the complaint, the court came to the correct conclusion that since November 16, 2008 was B.A. Ariskin’s day off, his dismissal for absenteeism on the basis of the above order is illegal, and the dismissal order is subject to cancellation.

Work record book for Ariskin B.A. was issued not on the day of his dismissal, but later on December 4, 2008 (case sheet 72-73).

In accordance with Part 4, 6 Article 84.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, documents confirming the direction to Ariskin B.A. notification by mail of the need to appear for a work book or to agree to have it sent by mail was not provided during the inspection.

In accordance with Article 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer is obliged to compensate the employee for the earnings he did not receive in all cases of illegal deprivation of his opportunity to work.

Such an obligation, in particular, arises if earnings are not received as a result of:

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

Delays by the employer in issuing a work book to an employee, or entering into the work book an incorrect or non-compliant formulation of the reason for the employee’s dismissal.

Under such circumstances, the court came to a reasonable conclusion that the state labor inspector lawfully issued an order obliging Firma Zelenogradstroy LLC to eliminate violations of labor legislation in relation to B.A. Ariskin.

In this connection, the court correctly recognized the requirements set out in the order of the State Labor Inspectorate in Moscow as justified.

The order of the state labor inspector to eliminate violations of labor legislation was issued in accordance with the competence granted to the State Labor Inspectorate, Article 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The State Labor Inspector lawfully issued an order obliging Zelenogradstroy LLC to eliminate violations of labor legislation - to cancel the order regarding the dismissal of B.A. Ariskin. for absenteeism, reinstate Ariskina B.A. as a third-class concrete worker and in accordance with Art. 234 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation to compensate Ariskina B.A.

the earnings he did not receive as a result of illegal dismissal and the earnings he did not receive as a result of the employer’s delay in issuing B.A. to Ariskin. his work book, recognize the entry in the work book of Ariskin B.A. illegal.

Resolving the case, the court came to a reasonable conclusion that the inspection was carried out on the basis of an authorized body, by a competent official, within the time limits established by law, based on the results of the inspection, an appropriate act was drawn up, and based on the facts of violations identified, an order was issued to the applicant to eliminate violations of labor legislation.

The court came to a reasonable conclusion that during the inspection, the inspector found violations of Labor legislation.

The court's conclusions that the actions of the state labor inspector in the implementation of supervisory functions in the field of monitoring compliance with labor legislation are lawful, since the issuance of order No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/2 dated May 14, 2010 is aimed at achieving a fair balance of interests employer and employee, as well as to protect and restore the violated rights and interests of the employee.

The court's conclusion is motivated, corresponds to the factual circumstances and materials of the case, and there are no grounds for recognizing it as incorrect.

The court examined all the circumstances of the case with sufficient completeness, gave a proper assessment of the evidence presented, the court's conclusions do not contradict the case materials, the legally significant circumstances in the case were established by the court correctly, the rules of substantive law were applied correctly by the court.

The court carefully analyzed the case materials, correctly established the factual circumstances relevant to the case, gave a well-founded and motivated assessment of all the parties' arguments, and provided in the decision all the necessary references to legal norms.

The arguments of the cassation appeal that the court incorrectly determined the circumstances relevant to the case, the court’s conclusions do not correspond to the circumstances of the case, cannot serve as a basis for canceling the decision, since they are aimed at a different assessment of the evidence examined by the trial court, do not contain new circumstances that refuted would be the conclusions of the court decision, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for its cancellation.

The arguments set out in the cassation appeal that the district court considered the case in the absence of a representative of Firma Zelenogradstroy LLC are not substantiated and cannot be a basis for canceling the court decision, since the applicant’s representative was duly notified, which is confirmed by receipts on p. d. 58, 59, did not appear at the court hearing, did not provide information about the valid reasons for failure to appear.

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 257 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the failure to appear at the court hearing of any of the persons specified in part one of this article, duly notified of the time and place of the court hearing, is not an obstacle to the consideration of the application.

The court did not commit any violations of the norms of procedural and substantive law leading to the reversal of the decision.

The argument of the cassation appeal that the order of the State Labor Inspector for Moscow No. 7-5257-10-OB/53/2 dated May 14, 2010 was issued in violation of the established procedure, was verified by the court, based on the evidence presented, assessed by the court in accordance with the requirements of Art. 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court did not find this argument justified. The panel of judges has no reason to make a different assessment of the evidence presented.

The argument of the complaint is that the director of Firma Zeenogradstroy LLC, Yu.V., filed a statement with the court. Gorbunov, and the court considered the complaint of Zelenogradstroy Firm LLC, cannot be a basis for canceling the court decision, since the director of the company is the legal representative of the legal entity and acts in its interests as an authorized executive body.

The argument of the complaint is that Ariskin B.A. worked on a rotational basis and for him Sunday was a working day in this mode of work, he is not wealthy, cannot be taken into account, since it contradicts the materials of the case. The court was not presented with evidence of changes to B.A. Ariskin. working hours. Working conditions Ariskina B.A. are recorded in the employment contract and in the internal labor regulations. Agreements on changing working conditions were not presented to the court.

The argument of the complaint that the state labor inspectorate does not have the right to carry out inspections, reinstate and collect wages during forced absence is not justified, since it contradicts the information contained in the order in which the State Labor Inspector in Moscow obliged the director of LLC " Firm Zelenogradstroy" restore Ariskina B.A. at work, cancel the dismissal order and make the payments due to him.

The order of the state labor inspector to eliminate violations of labor legislation was issued in accordance with the competence granted to the state labor inspectorate, Article 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Therefore, the reference of the applicant’s representative to the fact that between Ariskin B.A. and Zelenogradstroy Firm LLC have an individual labor dispute about reinstatement at work, which can only be resolved by a court, and the order was issued in excess of the powers granted and cannot be taken into account, since it is aimed at a different interpretation of the law.

According to Article 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, state labor inspectors, when exercising state supervision and control over compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, have the right:

Provide employers and their representatives with binding orders to eliminate violations of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, to restore the violated rights of employees, to bring those responsible for these violations to disciplinary liability or to remove them from office in the prescribed manner.

The argument of the complaint that in this case there is an individual labor dispute that must be resolved by the court, whose competence includes the assessment of evidence, also cannot be a basis for canceling the court decision, since there is no evidence that Ariskin B.A. went to court to resolve a labor dispute. Ariskin B.A. applied for protection of his labor rights in a different manner, provided for by the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the actions of the State Labor Inspector of Moscow are fully consistent with the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The reference to the fact that, in essence, there is a labor dispute does not affect the court’s conclusions about the legality of the order issued, since the State Labor Inspector of Moscow acted within the framework of labor legislation and its competence established by the norms of the International Labor Organization Convention No. 81 on Labor Inspection (1947), ratified by the Federal Law of April 11, 1998. No. 58-FZ.

The panel of judges does not see any grounds for canceling the court decision based on the arguments of the cassation appeal.

Based on the above and guided by Article 360, paragraph 1 of Art. 361 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, judicial panel

DEFINED:

the decision of the Nagatinsky District Court of Moscow dated October 28, 2010 is left unchanged, the cassation appeal is not satisfied.

Chairman:

Judges:

Supervision over the implementation of norms and the provisions of labor law, according to Art. 353 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, carried out by the State Labor Inspectorate. An employee has the right to file a complaint with this government supervisory body in cases where the employer violates his labor rights and interests.
Often, when downsizing or liquidating an enterprise, an employer, trying to reduce paperwork and personnel work, fires employees inappropriately. This is a violation of labor law. An employee can write a complaint to the labor inspectorate at the location of the employer.

Within 30 days of receiving the complaint, inspectors must conduct an audit of the employer's actions. If these violations are discovered, an order will be issued to the employer to reinstate the illegally dismissed employee in the workplace. In addition, the employer will have to pay the employee wages for forced downtime, calculated based on the employee’s average earnings before dismissal.

According to Art. 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the decision on reinstatement in case of illegal dismissal is subject to immediate execution. If the execution of the decision is delayed due to the fault of the employer, he will be obliged to compensate the employee for days of forced downtime in the amount of average earnings or pay him the difference in earnings.

Reinstatement at work on the basis of the prosecutor's office

In addition to the labor inspectorate, the employee has the right to write a complaint to the prosecutor’s office at the employer’s location.
He writes a complaint to the prosecutor's office, indicating all violations and, without fail, provides evidence of these violations. The prosecutor is conducting an inspection at the enterprise. If these violations are revealed, the prosecutor will issue an order to reinstate the employee in his workplace.
The order of the prosecutor, as well as the labor inspector, is subject to immediate implementation.

Reinstatement by court decision

In addition, the employee can go to court within 1 month from the date of illegal dismissal. The “countdown” of time begins from the moment the employee is given the dismissal order.
The court will consider the case on its merits. But the employee must himself collect evidence of his illegal dismissal and present it to the court along with the claim.
The employee must follow all personnel procedures upon termination of employment. He must sign the order for familiarization. The employee’s signature on the dismissal order does not mean his consent (as many people think), but acquaintance. The employee has the right to keep a copy of the order, as well as other documents related to his work activity and subsequent dismissal. The employer has no right to interfere with him.

Reinstatement after layoff

Reducing the number of employees is the most common reason for dismissal. This procedure is quite lengthy. The employer, together with the personnel officer, must prepare a lot of papers and documents. This is why so many violations of labor laws occur during staff reductions. An employee can file a complaint with the labor inspectorate, the prosecutor's office or the court.

In Art. 179 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation lists categories of employees who have a preferential right to remain at work in the event of layoffs. If the employer does not take into account this right of the employee, then the employee can write a complaint.

According to Art. 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, execution of a court decision on reinstatement at work is subject to immediate execution by the employer. The request for reinstatement is considered satisfied if the employee is reinstated to his previous job or the order to dismiss him is cancelled.

The employer must take the following actions when reinstating an employee:

• Issue an order to cancel the order to dismiss the employee. The employee must also be familiarized with this order by signing
• Make appropriate changes to the employee’s work book
• Actually allow the employee to perform his direct job duties

These actions must be carried out no later than the first working day from the date the employer receives a writ of execution based on a court decision.

Difficulties arise when reinstatement at work by court decision, when the position is reduced. In this case, the employer must issue an additional order to introduce this position into the staffing table. The remuneration for the newly introduced position cannot be lower than it was before the reduction.
In addition, the employer must pay the employee compensation for forced absence. Compensation is paid based on the employee’s average earnings before his reduction and dismissal.

The procedure for my dismissal due to redundancy was violated. Filed a complaint with the labor inspectorate. There is an order to reinstate him at work. The order has not yet been canceled, but a personal conversation with the director showed the hellish prospect of my exit - either voluntary dismissal or an article would follow. Today marks 2 months since I was fired. Can I, without waiting for a written invitation to my previous job (from day to day), get a job in another place?

• Question: No. 611 dated: 2014-04-23.

In accordance with Art. 353 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, federal state supervision over compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms is carried out by the federal labor inspectorate in the manner established by the Government of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of Art. 354 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the federal labor inspection is a single centralized system consisting of a federal executive body authorized to conduct federal state supervision over compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, and its territorial bodies (state labor inspectorates).

In accordance with Art. 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, state labor inspectors, when exercising federal state supervision over compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, have the right:

present to employers and their representatives mandatory regulations on eliminating violations of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, on restoring the violated rights of employees, bringing those responsible for these violations to disciplinary liability or removing them from office in the prescribed manner.

By virtue of Art. 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the dismissal is declared illegal, the employee must be reinstated in his previous job by the body considering the individual labor dispute.

The body considering an individual labor dispute makes a decision to pay the employee the average salary for the entire period of forced absence or the difference in earnings for the entire period of performing lower-paid work.

At the request of the employee, the body considering an individual labor dispute may limit itself to making a decision to collect compensation in favor of the employee.

If the dismissal is declared illegal, the body considering the individual labor dispute may, at the request of the employee, decide to change the wording of the grounds for dismissal to dismissal of one’s own free will.

By virtue of Art. 395 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the body considering an individual labor dispute recognizes the employee’s monetary claims as justified, they are satisfied in full.

According to Art. 396 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation of an illegally dismissed employee, on reinstatement of the employee to his previous job subject to immediate execution. When delayed the employer of the execution of such a decision, the body that made the decision makes a determination to pay the employee for the entire time of delay in the execution of the decision the average earnings or the difference in earnings.

In accordance with Art. 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to apply to the court for resolution of an individual labor dispute within three months from the day he learned or should have learned about a violation of his right, and in disputes about dismissal - within one month from the date he was given a copy of the order dismissal or from the date of issue of the work book.

Thus, in order to receive an order for reinstatement at work, to receive compensation under Art. 396 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. After being reinstated at work, write a letter of resignation of your own free will, agree with the employer on the date of dismissal and look for another job.

Attention! The information provided in the article is current at the time of publication.

In this article you will get the answer to the question: which government bodies can and should be contacted to protect your rights in case of illegal dismissal. I will also tell you which government agencies are effective to contact in case of illegal dismissal, and which are not. So, illegal dismissal: where to go.

There are three government bodies that can help with illegal dismissal: the federal labor inspectorate (state labor inspectorate), the prosecutor's office and the court. Let's figure out what powers they have in case of illegal dismissal of an employee.

Powers of the Federal Labor Inspectorate in case of illegal dismissal

The Federal Labor Inspectorate is provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation as a specialized government body that supervises compliance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms.

On behalf of the inspectorate, inspections are carried out by state labor inspectors, who are of two types. Some are involved in checking legal issues, others - checking compliance with safety regulations. In case of illegal dismissal, the employer will check compliance with labor laws by a legal state labor inspector.

In order for the employer to be inspected by the federal labor inspectorate in case of illegal dismissal, the employee must write a statement.

Based on the results of an inspection based on an application for illegal dismissal, the state labor inspector has the right to apply the following measures (Article 357 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation):

Firstly, issue a binding order to the employer to eliminate violations of labor legislation and to restore violated rights.

Secondly, bring the employer to justice - draw up a protocol on an administrative offense, consider the case of an administrative offense and impose a punishment.

Can a state labor inspector force an employee to be reinstated? Yes, the state labor inspector has the right to issue an order to reinstate the employee at work. This is evidenced by the following norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 234, which deals with the employer’s obligation to compensate for material damage to the employee in the event of illegal deprivation of the opportunity to work. An article of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation states that such an obligation arises when a decision of the state legal labor inspector to reinstate an employee to his previous job is refused or untimely executed.

Article 373 regulating the procedure for taking into account the motivated opinion of the elected body of the primary trade union organization when dismissing an employee at the initiative of the employer. I quote: the state labor inspectorate, within ten days from the date of receipt of the complaint (application), considers the issue of dismissal and, if it is recognized as illegal, issues the employer a binding order to reinstate the employee at work with payment for forced absence.

In practice, I do not advise you to rely unduly on the labor inspectorate and delay in filing a claim in court for reinstatement. There are several reasons why you should not rely on GIT:

The Federal Labor Inspectorate, as a rule, checks the procedural aspects of dismissal - whether the procedure for making a decision on dismissal has been followed. The labor inspector will not interrogate witnesses to absenteeism, your witnesses who say that there was no absenteeism, will not compare their testimony and evaluate which ones can be trusted and which cannot. The labor inspector will not check whether a reduction is actually being carried out, whether the reduction is being carried out formally to dismiss an unwanted employee, etc.

The labor inspector's order can be challenged in court within three months from the date of its issuance. The court can cancel it not only due to unfoundedness, but also due to violation of the verification procedure. When appealing an order, the employer may file a petition for interim measures in the form of suspension of the order.

The period for consideration of an application by the federal labor inspectorate is one month.

And finally, the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes a shortened period for going to court in disputes about dismissal - 1 month from the date of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order or from the date of issue of the work book. This period can be restored, but it is better not to risk it again.

Powers of the prosecutor's office in case of illegal dismissal

The prosecutor's office has the right to conduct audits of any legislation. The prosecutor's office is an accessible body, because there is a prosecutor's office in every district (there are inter-district ones). The prosecutor's office is the most “terrible” government body. At least, this opinion has taken root in the minds of the majority of Russian citizens. The prosecutor's office will definitely help - this is another common opinion.

Will the prosecutor's office help with illegal dismissal?

If we put aside formalities, the powers of the prosecutor's office are not much different from the powers of the federal labor inspectorate. The prosecutor's office, like the State Labor Inspectorate, conducts inspections and, based on the results of the inspections, brings administrative liability, and may require the employer to eliminate the violations committed - to make submissions on eliminating violations of labor legislation. Likewise, nowhere in the law does it say that the prosecutor cannot demand that an employee be reinstated. Most likely, he will send the employer a protest (demand to cancel) the illegal dismissal order.

But like the federal labor inspectorate, the prosecutor’s office, as a rule, checks compliance with the order (procedure) of dismissal. You can competently unsubscribe from the protest and the prosecutor's presentation. Want to know how? The prosecutor's office conducts an investigation within one month. As a rule, prosecutors are overloaded with work and will have very little time to respond to your complaint about illegal dismissal.

Although it is possible that contacting the prosecutor's office will help you get reinstated at work. Perhaps the employer will be afraid of the prosecutor's inspection. It is possible that if all possibilities for protecting your rights have been exhausted, the prosecutor will file a lawsuit in your interests with a claim for reinstatement at work. This right is granted to him by Art. 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Ultimately, contacting the federal labor inspectorate and the prosecutor's office is an excellent way to relieve yourself of responsibility for your future. Maybe they will help, maybe not. In the latter case, all responsibility can be placed on the state. For those who want to decide their destiny on their own, there is only one option - going to court.

Powers of the court in case of illegal dismissal

The court is the only government body that finally resolves the dispute over illegal dismissal. The court decision is binding. There is a federal bailiff service that enforces court decisions.

The court may rule on reinstatement, change the wording of the reason for dismissal, collect monetary compensation for unlawful deprivation of the opportunity to work in the amount of average monthly earnings, and also recover compensation for moral damage.

Some points you need to know when going to court.

The period for filing a lawsuit in disputes over dismissal is one month from the date of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order or from the date of issue of the work book. The deadline can be restored, but it is better not to risk it.

The employee is exempt from legal costs, including payment of state fees.