Russia: overview of changes in labour law

Salary payment

The deadline has been extended for notifying an employer about an employee’s change of bank account into which their salary is paid. If an employee now wants to change their bank details, they must notify the employer 15 calendar days in advance. Previously, the notice period was 5 business days.

At the same time, the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation was amended. Now, a company may be fined (up to 50,000 roubles) if it does not transfer the employee’s salary to the bank chosen by the employee.

In 2019, the Russian state labour authority (Rostrud) also repeatedly addressed the issue of salary payment and in particular the issue of the admissibility of salary transfers to different bank accounts. However, Rostrud expressed two opposite views on the issue (Rostrud Letter No. PG/25780-6-1 dated 10 October 2019 and Rostrud Letter No. TZ/5985-6-1 dated 16 October 2019).

Electronic employment books

On 1 January 2020, the transition to “electronic employment books” began. By 1 July 2020, all employers must notify employees that they need to choose a specific format for storing information about their employment: paper or electronic. By the end of 2020, the employee will have to write a corresponding application to the employer. In the event that an employee decides to switch to an “e-employment book”, the employer will have to return the employee’s paper employment book and keep records of their work only electronically. At the same time, the employer is obliged to submit all information about the employee on a monthly basis to the state pension fund information system.

Enforced recovery of salary arrears

The Labour Code of the Russian Federation has been amended with regard to the recovery of salary arrears from the employer and other amounts due to the employee. It is now possible to collect debts from the employer without recourse to the courts. If the labour inspector detects any underpayment, he will initially issue an order to eliminate such a violation. If the employer fails to comply with the injunction, and this becomes clear during an unscheduled inspection, the State Labour Inspectorate will decide on the enforcement of the injunction. An inspector without a court order, as previously required, will be able to appeal to bailiffs.

Special assessment of working conditions

Since 2020, the results of the newly conducted special assessment of working conditions can only be used if they are entered in a special state information system. The data must be transmitted to the system by the company which conducted the assessment. That company will be obliged to notify the employer of the transfer within 3 working days.

In addition, employees have now the right to submit comments and objections to the employer and the company which conducted the assessment regarding the results of the assessment conducted in their workplace. If such comments and objections are received, the employer will be obliged to consider them and, if necessary, decide on an unscheduled assessment of work conditions.

Clarifications by the Ministry of Labour

Dismissal for absence from work during a business trip

The Ministry of Labour, in the Letter dated 7 November 2019 No. 14-2/B-912, clarified the procedure for dismissal for absence from work during a business trip. An employee can be fired on this ground if they are absent from the place of performance of their work assignment without a valid reason for more than 4 consecutive hours.

Documents confirming absence from work are usually written evidence of the employee’s absence from the workplace and a report by the employee’s immediate supervisor. These documents may be drawn up by the immediate supervisor on the basis of documents received from the company where the employee was sent to a business trip.

Recall from annual leave

In the Letter dated 3 October 2019 No. 14-2/OOG-7286, the Ministry of Labour commented on the option of recalling an employee from 14-day leave if the employee had already taken 7 days’ leave twice that year. The Ministry of Labour recognised the recall of an employee from such leave as admissible, but only if the employee was not deprived of the opportunity (at a later date, for example) to use at least 14 calendar days of annual paid leave in a row.

Forwarding an employment book abroad

In the Letter dated 17 September 2019 No. 19-1/OOG-210, the Ministry of Labour confirmed the legitimacy of an employer’s refusal to send an employee’s employment book outside of Russia due to the prohibition of such a transfer, which is still in force under the Law of the USSR dated 24 June 1991 No. 2261-1.

Court practice

The employer must provide evidence of the absence of an employment relationship

The Supreme Court, in its Decision dated 24 June 2019 No. 77-KG19-4, stated that it was the employer who had to prove the absence of an employment relationship in a disputed situation with the employee.

In the case under consideration, the employee was not given a copy of his employment contract when he was hired. After starting work, the employee suffered an industrial injury. At the time, the employer refused to draw up accident documents and to pay sick leave, considering that no employment contract with the employee had been entered into. The employee applied to the court for a declaration that the employment relationship existed. After passing through several instances, the case was sent for reconsideration by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employee with no written employment contract has started work and performs it with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer, in its interests and under its control and management, the existence of an employment relationship is presumed and an employment contract is deemed to exist. The employer must provide proof that there is no employment relationship.

Missing the deadline for appealing to court

The Supreme Court, when considering cases on specific disputes (see in particular the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 (2019)), concluded that pregnancy and childcare, as well as an application by an employee to the State Labour Inspectorate for protection of their rights, may be good reasons for missing the deadline for appealing to court.