This is the conclusion reached by the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction in its Ruling No. 88-12166/2026 dated 3 August 2026.
The on‑duty electrician in the electrical workshop was systematically late for work, more than 4 times per month, for which he received a reprimand in February 2025. In the same month, he received a warning for failing to comply with ethical standards and rules of business conduct. In March 2025, he was issued a warning for violating the rules for storing and using official documents. In the same month, the employee was dismissed for repeated failure to perform job duties under clause 1, part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
The court of first instance ruled in favor of the employer, finding no violations of the dismissal procedure. However, the appellate and cassation courts disagreed with these conclusions. The courts declared the dismissal unlawful, holding that the employer had violated the proper procedure and failed to consider the gravity of the misconduct and the circumstances in which it was committed when selecting the disciplinary sanction. The courts noted that the employer had deliberately subjected the employee to disciplinary action three times within a single month, as the employer had initially intended to dismiss him.
The employer argued that the law does not prescribe a specific period during which an employee cannot be subjected to disciplinary action. The cassation court rejected this argument, noting that imposing disciplinary sanctions within a short period of time does not give the employee an opportunity to correct the violations committed.
It should be noted that courts have previously reached similar conclusions [1], holding that such conduct constitutes an abuse of power on the part of the employer, reasoning that an employee cannot, within a short period of time, understand and assess their own behavior, make improvements, and prevent further violations of labor discipline. However, in such cases, in addition to the frequency of penalties imposed by the employer, other violations of the dismissal procedure were also committed, and the disciplinary offenses often did not entail serious negative consequences. Therefore, the frequent imposition of disciplinary liability on an employee does not in itself indicate the the dismissal is unlawful.
When dismissing an employee, it is particularly important to comply with the following rules:
1) follow the procedure for imposing disciplinary sanctions and the applicable time limits established by Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
2) provide a detailed description of the disciplinary offense committed by the employee in the dismissal order;
3) take into account the gravity of the offense and the circumstances under which it was committed, as well as the employee’s prior conduct (quality of work, length of service, letters of appreciation, awards, bonuses) and their attitude toward work (for example, if the employee has maintained a clean disciplinary record throughout their employment), along with the employee’s personal circumstances (marital status, whether they have children, other sources of income, etc.);
4) consider the possibility of imposing a less severe disciplinary sanction;
5) reflect the points 3-4 in the dismissal order.
|
Marillion’s lawyers are always ready to assist clients with complex legal matters and provide guidance in challenging situations. |
[1] The Ruling of the Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 13 May 2019 No. 48-KG19-3, the Ruling of the Eighth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 14 November 2023, No. 88-21623/2023, of the Sixth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 20 March 2025, No. 88-4432/2025, Rulings of the Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated 23 September 2025 on case No. 8G-18965/2025, 88-23477/2025, dated 5 February 2026 on case No. 88-3166/2026.
