Individual Labor Disputes: Material and Procedural Legal Regulation

Abstract

Buyanova Marina - Professor, Labour Law Department, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Doctor of Juridical Sciences. Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: mbyanova@hse.ru.

The article is devoted to the procedural and material problems of individual labor dispute regulation in Rus- sia. A special attention is given to territorial jurisdiction, procedural terms (including terms of labor disputes and periods of limitation), different types of evidence and proving in consideration of labor disputes in courts. The author stresses the difficulties faced by employees in the provision of evidence (including written documents, witnesses, etc.).The author disclosed imperfections of dismissal legislation which prevent employee from recognizing in court that the dismissal is illegal and to take the previous job. The study makes it possible to arrive at the following key conclusions: 1. The applicable civil procedure and labor legislation about the consideration and settlement of labor disputes fails to include the principle of procedural equality of the parties. 2. The rule for the territorial jurisdiction of labor disputes set forth by Article 28 of the RF CPC (in the area of the respondent’s location) and the lack of a possibility of alternative consideration reduces the principle of impartial judicial litigation to zero. 3. Limited timeframes established for consideration of labor relations by courts prevent full judicial litigation. 4. Special timeframes for a worker to appeal to the court prescribed by Article 392 of the RF LC put him or her on unequal terms with the employer. 5. The rule forbidding a worker to add non-notarized copies of written evidence to the case materials predetermines the outcome of a court dispute. 6. A worker has no real possibility to prove that his or her rights have been violated by using the evi- dence of witnesses that are still employed by the employer. 7. A court’s right to refuse to satisfy a worker’s motion to conduct an expert evaluation of documents made available by the employer prevents the truth from being established in the case. 8. Lack of a procedure strictly established by law for dismissing workers for each of the grounds violates the principle of judicial practice uniformity.