The procedure and terms for the application of disciplinary sanctions

The right to bring employees to disciplinary responsibility, that is, to impose disciplinary sanctions on them, is vested in authorized representatives of the employer, who, in accordance with the legislation and constituent documents, are empowered to hire and dismiss employees. Such a conclusion suggests itself from the content of Part 1 of Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, where dismissal from work is indicated as a disciplinary measure. Naturally, this measure can only be applied by a person with the authority to hire and dismiss workers. Other disciplinary actions should also normally be applied by those individuals. Indeed, in the event of dismissal under paragraph 5 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for repeated failure to perform labor duties without good reason, a disciplinary sanction applied to an employee is one of the reasons for terminating an employment contract at the initiative of the employer. Whereas only a person with the authority to hire and dismiss employees has the right to decide on the dismissal of an employee.

In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 20 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the powers of the employer in labor relations, including when applying disciplinary sanctions, are exercised by the management bodies of the organization or persons authorized by them in the manner prescribed by law, constituent documents and local regulatory legal acts of a legal entity. In connection with the foregoing, it can be concluded that the head of the organization, without the decision of its governing body, cannot delegate powers to other persons to apply disciplinary sanctions, including by issuing an appropriate power of attorney or issuing an order (instruction). The foregoing allows us to single out two legally significant circumstances, the proof of which allows us to conclude that the person has the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions. Firstly, such a circumstance is the presence of a decision of the authorized body of the organization's management on granting the right to apply disciplinary sanctions. This right arises without a special decision for persons endowed by the management body of the organization with the right to hire and dismiss employees. Other employees may be vested with the right to apply disciplinary sanctions by the decision of the management body of the organization, which has the authority to empower employees with the right to hire and dismiss employees of the organization. The decision of the authorized management body of the organization may provide for the transfer of the right to apply disciplinary sanctions by a person who has the authority to hire and dismiss employees to other persons. In this case, the person exercising the right to hire and dismiss employees, subject to the decision of the competent authority for the management of the organization, may give the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions to other employees. Thus, without the decision of the authorized body for the management of a legal entity, the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions cannot arise.

Secondly, a legally significant circumstance, the proof of which allows us to conclude that a person has the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions, is the decision by the management body of the organization to grant these powers in accordance with the current legislation, constituent documents and other local regulatory legal acts of the organization. In connection with the foregoing, it can be concluded that the transfer of authority to apply disciplinary sanctions by a person with the right to hire and dismiss employees to other employees can be recognized as legal if the decision of the authorized body for managing the organization is made in accordance with its competence. That is, the authority of the organization's management body to transfer the right to apply disciplinary sanctions by decision of the person with the authority to hire and dismiss to other employees should be recorded in the constituent documents or other local regulatory legal acts of the organization. The absence of such authority from the management body of the organization does not allow to recognize the transfer of the right to bring to disciplinary responsibility to other persons as legal. In this case, only the body managing the legal entity has the right to vest the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions.

The proof of the considered legally significant circumstances allows us to conclude that a disciplinary sanction is applied by the authorized representative of the employer. Failure to prove any of these circumstances indicates that the person does not have the authority to apply disciplinary sanctions, which entails the recognition of the order to impose disciplinary sanctions as having no legal consequences. Thus, the presence of powers to apply disciplinary sanctions is another legally significant circumstance that must be proven when bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility.

As already noted, a legally significant circumstance to be proved when bringing an employee to disciplinary liability is the commission of a disciplinary offense by the employee, as well as the presence of a disciplinary offense. The proof of this circumstance must take place according to the rules specified in the legislation. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, before applying a disciplinary sanction, the employer is obliged to request a written explanation from the employee regarding the claims against him in connection with the violation of labor duties. The fulfillment of this obligation involves the issuance of an order (instruction) by the representative of the employer, which should set out the circumstances in connection with which the employee must give an explanation.

The employee must be familiarized with the specified order (instruction) against signature. The employer's failure to fulfill this obligation serves as one of the evidence of the employee's innocence in the commission of the disciplinary offense imputed to him.

Giving explanations by the employee about the claims brought against him by the authorized representative of the employer is a right, not an obligation. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, no one is obliged to testify against himself, his spouse and close relatives, the circle of which is determined by federal law. This rule also applies to cases of bringing employees to disciplinary responsibility. In connection with the foregoing, the employee may refuse to give explanations regarding the claims made against him for committing a disciplinary offense. Such a refusal does not contradict the current legislation. Therefore, the employee cannot be held disciplinary liable for refusing to give explanations regarding the claims of the authorized representatives of the employer about the violation of his labor duties. Such an order is contrary to the law.

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employee’s refusal to give explanations regarding the claims made by the employer about violation of labor duties is not an obstacle to the application of a disciplinary sanction. In Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation states that such a refusal must be formalized by an appropriate act. This act is drawn up by authorized representatives of the employer, the employee must be familiarized with it against signature. Refusal to familiarize with such an act in practice is formalized by another act. At the same time, the legislation does not specify how many employees must sign these acts. In order to refute the explanations of the employee, the testimony of at least two witnesses is required, confirming the inconsistency of his position. But at the same time, the employee should be invited to familiarize himself with the acts drawn up by the representatives of the employer. An employee's refusal to familiarize himself with the acts can be drawn up indefinitely by new acts drawn up by representatives of the employer. Although these acts cannot be recognized as admissible evidence in civil proceedings.

In paragraph 1 of Art. 71 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, written evidence includes acts in which there is information about the circumstances relevant to the case.

However, these acts do not have information about legally significant circumstances, they are intended to record only the fact of the employee's refusal to give explanations about the disciplinary offense imputed to him. In addition, acts are drawn up in connection with the need to document special knowledge about circumstances relevant to a civil case.

In the situation under consideration, the acts record the testimony of eyewitnesses about the events taking place. Such testimony in civil proceedings is recognized as evidence. In accordance with Art. 180 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the disclosure of the testimony of a witness as evidence is possible only in cases when they are received by another court in the manner of executing a court order or securing evidence, as well as when these testimony are received by the court in previous court hearings. In other cases, on the basis of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, witnesses must be interrogated directly by the court. An exception to this rule may be cases where witnesses cannot be called to the court session, for example in the event of death. In this case, their explanations may be read out by the court. Thus, the act of the employee's refusal to give an explanation cannot be used as admissible evidence by the employer. Although the employer may use the testimony of the signatories, given in court, as evidence.

In turn, the employee can use these acts to confirm his position on the case. In this case, the principle of asymmetry of evidence is applied, according to which a person accused of committing a misdemeanor, including a disciplinary one, can use evidence that is recognized as unacceptable for use by the accusing party, that is, the employer. In this connection, these acts can be used by the employee to confirm his position on the case.

Written explanations of the employee regarding claims made by the employer for violation of labor duties without the consent of the employee cannot be used by the court or the state labor inspectorate as admissible evidence. In accordance with Art. 157 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the body considering the application for violation of labor rights must directly examine the evidence presented. In this connection, only the explanations of the employee, which are given directly to the court or the state labor inspector, can be used as evidence. Although the employer, represented by authorized representatives, when resolving the application by the state labor inspector or the court, is not deprived of the opportunity to ask the employee questions about the written explanations given by him in connection with the presentation of claims for committing a disciplinary offense. In this case, the employee's answers, as part of his direct explanations to the court or the state labor inspector, can be used as evidence.

In turn, the employee accused of committing a disciplinary offense has the right to use written explanations given to the employer as evidence. In such a situation, the principle of asymmetric evidence also applies.

A legally significant circumstance when bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility is the compliance of the disciplinary measure applied to the employee with the violation of labor rights committed by him. The measure of disciplinary sanction in relation to the employee who committed the disciplinary offense is determined by the authorized representative of the employer. However, his decision to impose a disciplinary sanction on the employee must be legal and justified.

In this connection, in the decision of the employer on the application of one or another disciplinary sanction, the motives for applying this particular disciplinary sanction, and not another disciplinary sanction, must be given. Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that when choosing a disciplinary sanction applied to an employee by an authorized representative of the employer, the general principles of legal liability must be observed. These principles follow from the content of Art. Art. 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 19, 49, 50, 54, 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. These principles include justice, equality, proportionality, legality, humanism. In this connection, the employer needs to provide evidence indicating not only that the employee has committed a disciplinary offense, but also that when choosing a disciplinary sanction, the severity of this offense, the circumstances in which it was committed, the previous behavior of the employee, his attitude to work. If, when considering an application for the application of disciplinary liability, it is established that the misconduct actually took place, but the dismissal was made without taking into account the listed circumstances, the employee's requirements for the removal of a disciplinary sanction are subject to satisfaction. However, in this case, the judicial authority, the state labor inspectorate cannot replace the disciplinary sanction with a milder one, for example, dismissal for a reprimand, since the application of a disciplinary sanction in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation refers to the exclusive competence of the authorized representatives of the employer. In connection with the foregoing, the recognition by the court or the state labor inspectorate of illegal and (or) unfounded part of the employer’s claims regarding the employee’s violation of labor duties allows us to conclude that the severity of the committed disciplinary offense does not correspond to the applied disciplinary measure. For example, when an employee is fired for absenteeism and refusing to give explanations about being absent from work, claims about the employee refusing to give explanations are both illegal and unfounded. In this connection, a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal from work can be recognized as inappropriate to the severity of the misconduct committed by the employee, since part of the claims for which the employee is dismissed is recognized as inconsistent with the law. Especially if it is established that the employee was absent from work for good reasons, for example, he delivered his wife to the maternity hospital, but refused to inform the employer about the reason for his absence from work. There is no such reason as refusal to report the reason for absence from work for dismissal of an employee in the current legislation. In this connection, the employee must be reinstated at work with the consequences arising from such reinstatement.

In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a disciplinary sanction is applied no later than one month from the date of discovery of the misconduct. The day when a misconduct was discovered should be considered the day when it became known to the immediate supervisor of the employee, even if he does not have the right to hire and dismiss. The immediate supervisor of the employee is obliged to bring information about the committed disciplinary offense to the person enjoying the right to hire and dismiss, that is, the right to apply disciplinary sanctions. Failure to fulfill this obligation by the immediate supervisor of the employee, who does not have the authority to bring to disciplinary liability, within a month from the day he became aware of the commission of a disciplinary offense, excludes the possibility of applying a disciplinary sanction to the employee on legal grounds. In such a situation, a person enjoying the right to hire and dismiss may bring to disciplinary responsibility the immediate supervisor of the employee who has not fulfilled the obligation to timely report information about the committed disciplinary offense. Thus, the one-month period is preclusive for the application of disciplinary sanctions.

In part 3 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation lists periods that are not subject to inclusion in the monthly period established for bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility. This period does not include: 1) the time of illness of the employee; 2) the time the employee is on vacation; 3) the time required to take into account the opinion of the representative body of employees upon dismissal for violation of labor discipline of individual employees. The list of periods that are excluded from the monthly period established for the application of disciplinary sanctions is exhaustive. During the illness of the employee, the monthly period for imposing a disciplinary sanction is suspended. The employee's illness is confirmed by a certificate of temporary disability. At the end of the illness, the one-month period for the application of a disciplinary sanction continues. For example, after 20 days from the date of discovery of a disciplinary offense, an employee fell ill, and therefore was on a temporary disability sheet for two months. From which it follows that after the end of the illness, the employer within 10 days can apply a disciplinary sanction to the employee, after 10 days the monthly period for bringing to disciplinary responsibility ends.

For the duration of the employee's stay on any leave, including without pay, the monthly period for the application of a disciplinary sanction is also suspended. At the end of the vacation, as well as in the period between vacations, the monthly period for applying a disciplinary sanction continues. At the same time, the end of a vacation or holidays on weekends has no legal significance. The monthly period for applying a disciplinary sanction is calculated in calendar days. Therefore, the employee's days off are not excluded from it, and therefore cannot serve as a legal basis for its suspension.

The monthly period established for bringing an employee to disciplinary liability excludes the time required to take into account the opinion of the representative body of employees when applying dismissal as a disciplinary measure in relation to employees whose employment contract cannot be terminated without taking into account the opinion of the representative body of employees organizations. In accordance with Art. 373 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, suspension of a monthly period in order to take into account the opinion of an elected trade union body is possible for no more than 10 days. In this case, the following legally significant circumstances must be proved. Firstly, there is an indication in the legislation or a local regulatory legal act of the need to take into account the opinion of the representative body of employees when applying dismissal as a disciplinary measure. Secondly, it is necessary to prove the actual passage by the authorized representative of the employer of the procedure for taking into account the opinion of the elected trade union body when dismissing an employee for violating labor discipline. The proof of the above circumstances allows you to suspend the period for bringing the employee to disciplinary responsibility for 10 days, that is, for the time established by law for passing the procedure for taking into account the opinion of the representative body of employees during the dismissal. After 10 days, if the above circumstances are proved, the one-month period for bringing the employee to disciplinary responsibility continues. The failure to prove each of the circumstances considered does not allow legally suspending the course of the one-month period established for applying a disciplinary sanction to an employee.

When calculating the monthly period for bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility, it must be taken into account that certain disciplinary offenses, in particular absenteeism, may be of a continuing nature. In this case, the day of discovery of a disciplinary offense should be recognized as the first day the employee goes to work or informs the employer about the disrespectful reasons for absence from work, that is, in such a situation, the one-month period for bringing the employee to disciplinary responsibility begins to run from the date when any representative of the employer, including the immediate supervisor of the absent employee, became aware of the commission of a disciplinary offense by him. However, dismissal in such a situation is made from the first day the employee takes absenteeism.

In this connection, a continuing disciplinary offense and bringing an employee to disciplinary responsibility for its commission may go far beyond the month period, which will be calculated from the moment the employer's representative discovers that the employee has committed a disciplinary offense.

The application of a disciplinary sanction to an employee after a month has passed from the day when the representative of the employer became aware of the commission of a disciplinary offense by him entails the recognition of the order (instruction) to bring the employee to disciplinary liability as illegal and unreasonable. At the same time, the proof of other legally significant circumstances, in particular, the commission of a disciplinary offense, the application of a penalty by an authorized person, has no legal significance. An employee to whom a disciplinary measure was applied after a month from the date the employer discovered a disciplinary offense committed by him, in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is considered not to have a disciplinary sanction. In connection with the foregoing, compliance with the one-month period for applying a disciplinary sanction to an employee must also be recognized as a legally significant circumstance that must be proven when bringing the employee to disciplinary responsibility.

In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as a general rule, a disciplinary sanction cannot be applied later than six months from the day the disciplinary offense was committed. This period is also restrictive. Therefore, valid reasons, for example, the illness of an employee, his being on vacation are not grounds for his suspension or restoration. In this connection, the presence of an employee who has committed a disciplinary offense on a temporary disability sheet, on vacation within six months after the commission of a disciplinary offense, regardless of the timing of its discovery, deprives the employer of the right to apply a disciplinary sanction to the employee. Thus, the expiration of a six-month period, including when a disciplinary offense is discovered after the specified period, does not allow the employer to legally bring the employee to disciplinary responsibility. After six months, the employee, as a general rule, is released from disciplinary liability, regardless of when the employer became aware of the commission of a disciplinary offense by him, since this period is calculated from the moment the disciplinary offense was committed, and not discovered.

An order (instruction) to bring an employee to disciplinary responsibility after six months from the date of committing a disciplinary offense by him is illegal and unreasonable. In this connection, an employee brought to disciplinary responsibility after six months from the date of commission of a disciplinary offense is considered not to have a disciplinary sanction. The foregoing allows us to conclude that compliance with the six-month period from the date of the commission of a disciplinary offense is a legally significant circumstance when bringing an employee to disciplinary liability. Violation of this period allows the employee to be recognized as not having a disciplinary sanction, including when other legally significant circumstances are proven, in particular, the application of a disciplinary sanction by an authorized person, the commission of a disciplinary offense, compliance with a one-month period from the date of detection of a disciplinary offense.

As already noted, the fact that an employee is on a temporary disability sheet, on vacation does not interrupt the course of a six-month period, after which a disciplinary sanction cannot be applied to an employee who has committed a disciplinary offense. During the period of temporary disability and the employee's stay on vacation in Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation it is forbidden to apply a disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal from work. Although within a six-month period during the period of temporary disability and the employee is on vacation, when its course is not suspended, other disciplinary measures may be applied to the employee, in particular, a remark and a reprimand. Two exceptions have been made to the rule on the impossibility of applying a disciplinary sanction after six months from the day the disciplinary offense was committed. In accordance with Part 4 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a disciplinary sanction cannot be applied later than two years from the date of the commission of a disciplinary offense identified as a result of an audit, audit of economic activities or an audit. In this connection, when conducting an audit, audit of economic activity or an audit in compliance with the current legislation, the preventive period is set at two years from the date of the disciplinary offense. However, in the situation under consideration, there is a one-month period for applying a disciplinary sanction, which is calculated from the day the disciplinary offense was discovered. In this case, the day of detection of the offense should be considered the day that any representative of the employer is familiarized with the audit report, documents of the audit of financial and economic activities, audit, which indicate the commission of a disciplinary offense. Naturally, the expiration of a one-month period from the date of discovery of a disciplinary offense, including before the expiration of the preventive period of two years, calculated from the moment the offense was committed, deprives the employer of the right to apply a disciplinary sanction to the employee.

From part 4 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it follows that the total six-month period calculated from the day the disciplinary offense was committed, and the special preemptive period used when legally conducting an audit, audit of financial and economic activities, an audit, does not include the time of criminal proceedings. Consequently, for the period of criminal proceedings, the course of the specified preventive terms is suspended. Proceedings in a criminal case begin from the moment of its initiation and end with the issuance of either a decision to terminate criminal prosecution at the preliminary investigation stage, or a court decision that has entered into legal force. The said period of proceedings in a criminal case shall be excluded from the preventive periods calculated from the moment the disciplinary offense was committed. However, these terms continue to run from the moment the disciplinary offense was committed until the initiation of a criminal case, as well as after the end of the criminal proceedings. Although, in criminal proceedings, a one-month period from the date the employer discovered a disciplinary offense is also applied. The course of this period may not be related to the investigation of a criminal case in cases where the representatives of the employer have information about the commission of a disciplinary offense by the employee. The monthly period may also be calculated from the date the employer receives the final document on the criminal case, in which there are references to signs of a disciplinary offense. As already noted, the expiration of a month from the date of discovery of a disciplinary offense deprives the employer of the right to apply a disciplinary sanction to the employee.

In accordance with Part 5 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, only one disciplinary sanction may be applied for each disciplinary offense. The application of two or more disciplinary sanctions to an employee for one disciplinary offense makes it possible to recognize the order (instruction) to bring the employee to disciplinary liability as illegal and unreasonable, and the employee brought to disciplinary liability in this way should be considered not having a disciplinary sanction. An authorized state body that checks the legality and validity of bringing an employee to disciplinary liability, when applying more than one disciplinary sanction for one disciplinary offense, must recognize the decision to impose disciplinary sanctions on the employee as illegal and unreasonable. The court, the state labor inspectorate is not granted the right to choose a measure of disciplinary action, this power is the prerogative of the employer. Therefore, the application of several penalties for one disciplinary offense entails the recognition of the decision to bring to disciplinary liability illegal and unreasonable, and the employee brought to disciplinary liability in this way should be recognized as not having a disciplinary sanction. At the same time, the proof of other legally significant circumstances, in particular, the application of a disciplinary sanction by an authorized person, the commission of a disciplinary offense, compliance with the deadlines calculated from the date of detection and commission of a disciplinary offense, and bringing to disciplinary responsibility, has no legal significance. Consequently, the application of one disciplinary sanction for each disciplinary offense is a legally significant circumstance when bringing an employee to disciplinary liability.

In accordance with Art. 195 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the authorized representative of the employer is obliged to consider the application of the representative body of employees about the violation by the head of the organization, his deputies of the legislation, the terms of labor contracts and report the results of the consideration to the representative body of employees. If the facts of violations are confirmed, the authorized representative of the employer is obliged to apply a disciplinary sanction to the indicated persons who have committed a disciplinary offense, up to and including dismissal from work. Failure by the authorized representative of this obligation allows the representative body of employees to apply to the court with a claim for the obligation to apply disciplinary measures. However, even when these persons are brought to disciplinary responsibility, the considered terms are applied, excluding the possibility of imposing disciplinary sanctions on employees, regardless of their position.

Thus, when bringing an employee to disciplinary liability, which consists in applying disciplinary sanctions to him, the following legally significant circumstances are subject to proof: 1) the person who applied the disciplinary sanction has the authority to bring employees to disciplinary liability; 2) the commission of a disciplinary offense, the proof of which is related to the observance of the rule on the fulfillment by the employer of the obligation to demand the relevant explanations from the employee and the exercise by the employee of the right corresponding to this obligation to give such an explanation; 3) compliance with the deadlines for the application of disciplinary sanctions, calculated from the moment the disciplinary offense was committed and the date it was discovered by the representative of the employer; 4) compliance of the severity of the disciplinary offense committed by the employee with the measure of disciplinary sanction applied to him; 5) the application of a disciplinary sanction provided for by federal law, charters and regulations on the discipline of employees approved by the Government of the Russian Federation; 6) application for each disciplinary offense of only one disciplinary sanction. Lack of evidence for each of the above circumstances makes it possible to recognize the decision to bring the employee to disciplinary liability as illegal and (or) unreasonable, and the employee as not having a disciplinary sanction.

In part 6 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes a rule according to which the order (instruction) of the employer on the application of a disciplinary sanction is announced to the employee against receipt within three working days from the date of its issuance. Compliance with this period is possible when the employee is present at work. The absence of an employee brought to disciplinary responsibility at work allows the employer to familiarize him with the specified order (instruction) on the first day of going to work, as well as send a document on the application of a disciplinary sanction to the employee's place of residence. An employee's refusal to sign an order (instruction) on the application of a disciplinary sanction to him entails the drawing up by the employer's representatives of an appropriate act, which is not acceptable evidence for the employer to confirm the employee's refusal to familiarize himself with the order (instruction) on bringing him to disciplinary liability. But at the same time, the employer may use the persons who signed the specified act as witnesses to confirm the employee's refusal to familiarize himself with the specified order (instruction). The absence of a written document, that is, this act, deprives the employer of the right to refer to witness testimony to confirm compliance with the written form of familiarizing the employee with the order (instruction) to bring him to disciplinary responsibility. In turn, the employee can use any evidence, including an act drawn up by the employer's representatives, to confirm the employer's non-compliance with the written form of familiarization with the order (instruction) on bringing to disciplinary responsibility. The period for an employee to appeal against a disciplinary sanction applied to him/her should be calculated from the moment when it is established that the employee was familiar with the order (instruction) to bring him to disciplinary liability. In this case, the employer is obliged to hand over to the employee, at his request, a copy of the order (instruction) on the application of a disciplinary sanction to him. Failure by the employer to fulfill this obligation is a good reason for missing the deadline for going to court, since the employee can draw up an application with the help of representatives only if he has the specified copy. In this connection, the deadline for applying for judicial protection, missed due to the untimely delivery of a copy of the order to impose a disciplinary sanction, must be restored by the CCC or the court.

In accordance with Part 7 of Art. 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a disciplinary sanction may be appealed by an employee to the state labor inspectorate or bodies for the consideration of individual labor disputes. At the same time, the deadlines for applying for protection of the violated right to the state labor inspectorate have not been established. In this connection, the employee is not required to provide evidence confirming the validity of the reasons for the untimely appeal of the disciplinary sanction when applying to the labor inspectorate.

Textbook "Labor Law of Russia" Mironov V.I.

• HR and Labor Law