Transformation of Legal Consequences of Unreasonable Refusal of Employment in Contemporary Russian Justice System

Labor legislation prohibits unjustified refusal of employment and provides job seekers with the opportunity to judicial protection of the right to work. In the Russian justice system, such disputes are becoming widespread. However, the legal fact of unjustified refusal established by the court most often does not ensure that the applicant gets a job. The consequences of such a refusal are limited to compensation for moral damage in monetary form. The purpose of the paper is to critically evaluate judicial practice in this category of labor disputes. Methodologically, the author relies on the formal legal method, systemic methods, as well as the goalsetting method. The author carries out a comparative analysis of the guiding judicial practice of 1992 and 2004, as well as current rulings of the cassation courts of general jurisdiction in cases under study. The author explains the circumstances of unjustified refusals, qualifies unreasonable refusal as illegal. The paper elucidates the role of special safeguards in claims for forcing an employer to conclude an employment contract, provides doctrinal considerations regarding factors that do not allow the court to oblige the employer to hire an individual in all cases of recognition of refusal to conclude an employment contract as illegal. The author explains that in this state of affairs, the norms of Articles 16, 64 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation are not implemented and the goals of judicial protection of the rights of citizens who are wrongfully denied employment are not achieved. The author proposes clarification and addition of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, unifying court decisions on claims for concluding an employment contract. If the refusal is recognized as unreasonable, the courts in all cases must make decisions on the occurrence of an employment relationship and payment for the time of deprivation of the opportunity to work.

1. Abramova O. V., Seregina L. V. Praktika primeneniya Trudovogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii: nekotorye spornye voprosy // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2007. — № 8. — S. 122–131.

2. Gadzhieva M. Na net sud est: spory po otkazam v trudoustroystve stali vyigryvat vdvoe chashche // URL: https://iz.ru/1419270/milana-gadzhieva/na-net-sud-est-spory-po-otkazam-v-trudoustroistve-stali-vyigryvatvdvoe-chashche.

3. Gretskiy I. A. Diskriminatsionnye motivy i ikh ustanovlenie v subektivnoy storone neobosnovannykh otkaza litsu v prieme na rabotu ili uvolneniya rabotnika (st. 144.1 i 145 UK RF) // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2023. — № 4. — S. 105–114.

4. Dogovory o trude v sfere deystviya trudovogo prava: ucheb. posobie / K. N. Gusov, K. D. Krylov, A. M. Lushnikov [i dr.]; pod red. K. N. Gusova. — M.: Prospekt, 2010. — 256 s.

5. Kolobova S. V. Zakonnost i obosnovannost sudebnogo resheniya po trudovym sporam // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2016. — № 1. — S. 86–92.

6. Kommentariy k Trudovomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii (postateynyy) / M. A. Bocharnikova, Z. D. Vinogradova, A. K. Gavrilina [i dr.]; otv. red. Yu. P. Orlovskiy. — 7‑e izd., dop. i pererab. — M.: Kontrakt; Knorus, 2015. — 1272 s.

7. Orlovskiy Yu. P., Nurtdinova A. F., Chikanova L. A. Nastolnaya kniga kadrovika: yuridicheskie aspekty. — M., 2005. — 372 s.

8. Petrov A. Garantii pri zaklyuchenii i izmenenii trudovogo dogovora // Trudovoe pravo. — 2014. — № 4. — S. 75–83.

9. Prava rabotodateley v trudovykh otnosheniyakh / pod red. A. F. Nurtdinovoy, L. A. Chikanovoy. — M.: Eksmo, 2009. — 480 s.

10. Sitnikova E. G., Senatorova N. V. Trudovoy kodeks Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Razdel III. Trudovoy dogovor: postateynyy nauchno-prakticheskiy kommentariy. — Bibliotechka «Rossiyskoy gazety». — 2013. — Vyp. VII– VIII. — 720 s.

11. Sokolova G. A. Otkaz v prieme na rabotu // Kadrovaya sluzhba i upravlenie personalom predpriyatiya. — 2007. — № 8. — S. 27–30.

12. Chikanova L. Prava rabotnikov i rabotodateley pri postuplenii (prieme) na rabotu // Khozyaystvo i pravo. — 2004. — № 10. — S. 14–21.