The system of bodies considering labor disputes. Labor dispute authorities

Labor disputes arising between the employee and the employer regarding the application of the current labor legislation, the collective agreement and other local regulatory legal acts, as well as the fulfillment of the terms of the employment contract, are considered by: ); courts of general jurisdiction (Article 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation); justice of the peace of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); the federal district court as a court of first instance (Article 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); the district court as an appellate instance (Article 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); the relevant supreme court of the republic, the regional court, the court of the city of federal significance, the court of the autonomous region, the court of the autonomous district as a court of cassation for consideration of a district court decision that has not entered into legal force (Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation) or as a court of first instance ; the presidium of the supreme court of the republic, the regional court, the court of the city of federal significance, the court of the autonomous region, the court of the autonomous district as a court of supervisory authority to review the decision of the district court that has entered into legal force, the appeal ruling of the district court, the ruling of the court of the republic, the regional court , courts of a city of federal significance, a court of an autonomous region, a court of an autonomous district (Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); other bodies not provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but determined in accordance with Article 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws (for example, disputes of certain categories of employees considered in a special order). The procedure for consideration of individual labor disputes by other bodies not specified in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is not the object of study of this work.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation provided for the possibility of applying a special procedure for pre-trial consideration of certain categories of labor disputes.

Chapter 60 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation basically retained the practice-tested procedure for considering individual labor disputes with minor changes. In the science of labor law, proposals have long been made to establish a single jurisdiction for individual labor disputes, regardless of the nature of the dispute. This scientifically based proposal is enshrined in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, disputes on transfer to another job are currently not under the jurisdiction of the labor dispute commission, but are considered directly in court, as well as disputes about dismissals, regardless of their grounds.

Under jurisdiction, we propose to understand the method and procedure for determining the body that should initially consider an individual labor dispute. The criteria for such a determination will be the basis of the dispute, the type and content of the violation (or alleged violation) of the rule established by the norm, the status of the employee and employer, the fact that the organization has a CCC, procedural deadlines.

The distribution of competence between the CCC and the court is such that the CCC is primarily responsible for protecting the rights of an employee in labor relations. The task of the CCC is the pre-trial resolution of an individual labor dispute, subordinate to the CCC, directly in the organization. The court is entrusted with the task of protecting the right itself under an employment contract and considering other labor disputes after or instead of the CCC or when there is no CCC.

The majority of individual labor disputes are considered either directly in the commission on labor disputes, or sequentially passing through both stages: the CCC, then the court. This procedure is convenient because disputes can be considered directly in the organization, i.e. at the place of work, where evidence can be collected and evaluated more quickly and easily.

Each jurisdictional body (CCC, court, superior body for disputes with alternative jurisdiction) is an independent body with its own procedure for considering labor disputes. Although the possibility of successive consideration of the dispute, first in the CCC, then in court, is called the general procedure, each of these bodies has its own procedure, regulated differently by law.

The procedure for considering labor disputes in the CCC is regulated by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 383-390) and other federal laws. The procedure for considering labor disputes in court is determined by Art. 391-397 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, as well as civil procedural legislation. Other federal laws for the CCC and the court are laws that establish alternative jurisdiction for certain labor disputes, i.e. the employee himself decides where to apply - to a higher authority or to the court.

From the point of view of a number of authors, it seems appropriate to maintain the jurisdiction of labor disputes, provided for by the norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. They propose to regulate not only the law, but also the procedure for making decisions by the CCC to refuse to accept a dispute that is not under its jurisdiction, with an explanation of the procedure for its resolution. The employee in these cases should have the right to appeal against the decision of the CCC, which denied him the consideration of the application. The form of appeal to the CCC should be determined by law. It is necessary to simplify as much as possible the procedure for applying to the CCC by an employee, providing for the obligation of a member of the CCC to assist the employee in preparing an application in terms of clarifying his requirements. In the course of accepting employees' applications, it is advisable for members of the commission to conduct appropriate negotiations with the employee, identify the essence of the dispute, clarify the employee's requirements, and in some cases help the applicant formulate them.

In my opinion, this point of view should be accepted only partially. These provisions can be implemented only by those members of the CCC who are representatives of the employee. Moreover, in this case, such member of the CCC should not participate in the consideration of the dispute in the commission. It is necessary to establish at the level of law a rule that provides for a ban on a member of the CCC to represent the interests of an employee who submits an application for consideration by the commission.

Part 2 Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that the specifics of the consideration of labor disputes for certain categories of workers are established by federal laws.

In accordance with Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for considering labor disputes is determined only by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other federal laws. By-laws, laws of subjects of the Russian Federation cannot change it. However, in practice, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation adopt laws that also establish an alternative jurisdiction of labor disputes of municipal employees (the right to apply for permission of a labor dispute to local authorities or to the court. This contradicts part 2 of article 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, although there is another point of view AF Nurtdinova believes that there is no contradiction in the legislation.

All individual labor disputes according to their initial jurisdiction can be divided into the following groups: 1) considered in a general manner, starting with the CCC. This is how labor disputes arising from an employment relationship are considered. Other labor disputes derived from an employment relationship are not resolved in a general manner, since they are not under the jurisdiction of the CCC; 2) considered by the justice of the peace; 3) considered by the district court; 4) considered by a higher authority.

This is how the law defines jurisdictional bodies for individual labor disputes. But in a general manner, a dispute between an employee and an employer is considered in the CCC, and then, at the initiative of one of the disputing parties, in court. Recently, alternative jurisdiction of some disputes has arisen and is expanding - at the choice of the plaintiff in court or in a higher body. It follows that the CCC does not consider them. Since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not single out, according to jurisdiction, into a separate group individual labor disputes about establishing new working conditions for an employee, about satisfying his legitimate interests, they are considered, as well as disputes about the application of labor legislation, i.e. disputes about law, in the same general order, starting with CCC. In the labor dispute commission, those disagreements are subject to consideration that develop into a labor dispute resolved by the jurisdictional body, i.e. if the employee, independently or with the participation of the trade union committee as a representative of his interests, did not resolve these differences in direct negotiations with the administration. Therefore, the CCC, when accepting the application, must establish whether the employee tried to resolve the conflict that had arisen directly with the employer, his representatives.

The Labor Dispute Commission cannot deal with disputes that fall under the jurisdiction of a court or higher authority, otherwise its decision will be illegal.

Article 384 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation changed the procedure for the formation of a commission on labor disputes that existed before 2002 (according to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If earlier its members were elected by the general meeting (conference) of the labor collective, then in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the CCC is created at the initiative of the employees and (or) the employer from an equal number of representatives of employees and employers, i.e. on a parity (equal) basis. At the same time, representatives of employees in the CCC are elected by the general meeting (conference) of employees of the organization or delegated by the representative body of employees (trade union committee) with their subsequent approval at the general meeting (conference) of employees of the organization. Representatives of the employer are appointed to the KTS by order of the head of the organization. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation, unlike the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, does not provide for a rule according to which CCCs are formed in all organizations with more than 15 employees. It seems that the obligation to create a CCC in organizations of all forms of ownership should be retained in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The existing procedure, in my opinion, violates the rules of jurisdiction and jurisdiction. It is necessary to define in the law the person (persons) responsible for the formation of CCC in organizations. It seems that such a duty should be assigned to the employer. As long as the specified gap in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation remains, the very existence of the CCC institution as a body for resolving individual labor disputes in organizations becomes problematic.

Since labor legislation regulates the activities of the CCC in the most general terms, it is advisable at the level of a local regulatory act to develop in the organization the Regulations on the commission on labor disputes, which should detail the procedure for its organization and activities. In this case, priority should be given to questions of a procedural nature. The developers of such a document, as well as members of the existing commissions, can also use the norms of civil procedural legislation. In any case, this kind of local regulation (in the absence of a labor procedural code) can be very useful for members of the CCC and parties to an individual labor dispute. Given the particular relevance of issues related to the formation and operation of CCC in organizations, it seems necessary to propose to the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation to prepare an approximate regulation on CCC. It also seems necessary to organize the production and free distribution of methodological and special legal literature to help members of the CCC in organizations. Today, many Russian citizens and organizations need real support of this kind.

The presence of CCC allows you to resolve most of the emerging individual labor disputes promptly and with high quality in the organization itself. In this case, the employer does not bear legal costs.

The participation of legally educated citizens in the CCC, the high efficiency of the activities of such CTCs is the prototype of the labor court, as a special jurisdictional body for the consideration of individual labor disputes. The organization of such CCCs and the effectiveness of resolving labor disputes by them confirms the correctness of the thesis about the need to form labor courts.

For a more successful formation of the CCC, it is necessary to clarify some provisions in the current labor legislation. So, in accordance with part 5 of Art. 384 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the commission on labor disputes elects a chairman and a secretary from among its members. This is not consistent with Part 6 of Art. 387 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since it also refers to the Deputy Chairman of the CCC.

By decision of the general meeting of the labor collective, CCC organizations can also be formed in some of its structural divisions with a large number of employees (or, for example, geographically remote from the central part of the organization). Commissions on labor disputes of subdivisions are created from an equal number of representatives of the labor collective, elected by the general meeting of employees of the subdivision, and representatives of the head of the subdivision, appointed by his order (instruction). In particular, at the enterprise of Novosibirsk, OAO Agrobios, a KTS of a subdivision (workshop) for the repair of refrigeration units was created. The creation of a separate workshop in this case is justified by the fact that it is located at a fairly significant territorial distance from the parent organization in the village of Agroles, Iskitimsky district, Novosibirsk region.

Commissions on labor disputes of the structural divisions of the organization operate in the same manner as the CCC of the central (head) organization for the consideration of labor disputes of employees of this division. Any disputing party can appeal against its decisions in court. Thus, in this case, the general procedure for sequential consideration of the dispute is also observed. Practice knows two types of commissions for the consideration of labor disputes: "CCC of the organization" and "CCC of the structural unit of the organization."

Labor dispute commissions of structural subdivisions may consider individual labor disputes within the powers of these subdivisions.

The elected representatives of employees in the CCC (including in the CCC of a structural subdivision of the organization) are considered to be employees who received the majority of votes and for whom more than half of the members of the labor collective present at the meeting, and at the conference - of the conference delegates present, voted. The law does not establish how many members of the labor collective (delegates to the conference) must be present at the general meeting in order for it to be competent to elect representatives of employees to the CCC. Therefore, the general rule for holding meetings applies, i.e. it is authorized to resolve issues when at least half of the members of the labor collective (conference delegates) are present.

Each KTS has its own seal. For organizational and technical services of the commission on labor disputes (clerical work, storage of cases, issuance of copies of decisions and extracts from the minutes of the CCC meeting), a permanent employee is specially appointed by order of the employer, and this is part of his labor function. This employee registers incoming applications, notifies of the time of the CCC meeting, etc. Since the listed actions are included in the scope of his labor duties, he can perform them during working hours.

An employee can apply to the labor dispute commission, the law does not grant such a right to the employer.

The employee has the right to apply to the KTS within three months from the day when he learned or should have learned about the violation of his right. The Labor Disputes Commission is obliged to accept the employee's application filed within the statute of limitations, register it and convene a meeting so that the dispute is considered within ten days from the date of submission of the application. If the deadline for applying to the KTS is missed, the employee's application is accepted. In this case, the commission finds out the reasons for missing the deadline. If they are valid, the CCC has the right to make a decision to restore the term and the dispute can be considered on the merits (Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). From the point of view of the science of labor law, this period is a claim period. The claim (prescription) period is the period of calendar time established by law for applying to the jurisdictional body for the protection of one's labor right or legitimate interest. Missing the claim period without good reason entails the loss of the right to protection in this body, therefore, the claim period is considered as a period for the implementation of the protection of the material labor right of the employee. The law does not determine which reasons are valid, leaving it to the discretion of the CCC. The practice of CCC considers such reasons to be a long-term illness of an employee, being on a business trip, vacation, etc. If the CCC, when resolving the issue of missing the claim period, recognizes it as a pass without good reason, then it makes a decision to refuse to satisfy the employee's requirements. This decision of the CCC can be appealed to the court.

The issue of deadlines in labor legislation has been repeatedly raised by employees and their representatives before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The norms of parts one and three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as parts one and three of Article 392 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, essentially fix the same provisions on the timing of going to court to resolve an individual labor dispute. These norms established the same rules and the possibility of their restoration by the court in case of absence for good reasons. In accordance with these standards, an application for resolving a labor dispute is submitted to a district (city) court or a justice of the peace within three months from the day when the employee learned or should have learned about the violation of his right, and in cases of dismissal - within a month from the date of delivery of a copy of the dismissal order or from the date of issue of the work book. In case of missing the specified terms for valid reasons, they can be restored by the court. Article 386 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes a similar period for applying to the CCC - three months from the day the employee found out or should have found out about the violation of his right.

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly issued rulings in which the following legal position was expressed. Parts one and three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation correlate with the provision of Article 37 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the recognition of the right to individual and collective labor disputes using the methods of their resolution established by federal law and, in fact, regulate the conditions, procedure and terms for the implementation of this constitutional rights. The one-month and three-month periods provided for by part one of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for applying to the court are aimed at the quick and effective restoration of the violated rights of the employee, including the right to work in cases of illegal termination of the employment contract by the employer, the right to protection from unemployment, as well as the right to timely pay . The timeliness of going to court depends on the will of the employee. A deadline missed for valid reasons may be restored by the court or the CCC. In addition, by establishing a one-month rather than a longer term in cases of dismissal, the legislator took into account both the interests of the employer related to the selection of personnel, and the interests of a new employee who has taken a controversial position and is subject to dismissal if the former employee’s claim for reinstatement is satisfied. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation came to the conclusion that part three of Article 211 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is aimed not at limiting, but at expanding the guarantees of judicial protection of the rights and interests of participants in labor disputes if they miss, for good reason, the deadlines for applying to the court for permission to work spore. It equally protects the interests of both the employee and the employer, since both parties to the labor dispute are interested in the shortest possible time for its consideration (the employee in order to be reinstated in his previous job, and the employer in order to be able to hire a new employee). In this case, the decision of the CCC or the court to refuse to restore the missed period may be appealed.

In accordance with Art. 14 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the period with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation connects the emergence of labor rights and obligations begins from the calendar date on which the beginning of the emergence of these rights and obligations is determined. The period with which the Labor Code of the Russian Federation connects the termination of labor rights and obligations begins the day after the calendar date that determines the end of the employment relationship. Terms calculated in years, months, weeks expire on the corresponding day of the last year, month or week of the term. Non-working days are also included in the period calculated in calendar weeks or days. If the last day of the term falls on a non-working day, the expiration date of the term shall be the next working day following it.

In accordance with Art. 387 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, consideration of a labor dispute in absentia is possible only upon a written application from the employee. He may indicate in the application that he asks to consider the labor dispute in his absence. If the employee fails to appear for the second time without good reason at the meeting of the commission, then the CCC may decide to withdraw his application from consideration. But this does not deprive the employee of the right to file a re-application on the dispute, if the three-month claim period has not been missed. If the representative of the employer does not appear, the CCC meeting is not postponed.

Meetings of the CCC are held at non-working hours convenient for the employee concerned. The employee and the employer are notified in advance of the time for the consideration of the dispute. A meeting is considered competent to consider a labor dispute if it is attended by at least half of the members from each party, moreover, they must sit in an equal number of representatives from each party.

The labor dispute commission should not copy the court. Witnesses in the dispute are not removed, their attendance is voluntary, and the commission resolves the dispute by conferring and secretly voting right in the meeting room in the presence of the employee and other persons. This ensures wide publicity and public control over the work of the CCC. A copy of the minutes of the CCC meeting is usually posted for familiarization of the members of the labor collective.

The minutes of the CCC meeting are kept by its secretary, and signed and stamped by the CCC chairman or his deputy.

The decision of the commission on labor disputes indicates (Article 388 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation): the name of the organization (subdivision), last name, first name, patronymic, position, profession or specialty of the employee who applied to the commission; dates of application to the commission and consideration of the dispute, the substance of the dispute; surnames, names, patronymics of the members of the commission and other persons present at the meeting; the essence of the decision and its justification (with reference to the law, other regulatory legal act); Voting results.

Properly certified copies of the decision of the commission on labor disputes are handed over to the employee and the head of the organization within three days from the date of the decision.

The decision of the CCC must be motivated and justified, contain references to the relevant labor law norms. The operative part of the decision is written in a binding form: refuse the applicant to satisfy the stated requirements, oblige the employer to pay such and such an amount to the employee, restore the employee's previous production standards, etc.

The three-day period for the delivery to the employee and the administration of properly certified copies of the decision of the CCC is the procedural period established by law. Only after receiving such a copy of the decision of the CCC, any of the disputing parties can appeal it to the court.

The decision of the CCC is appealed by the employee or employer to the court within ten days from the date of delivery of copies of the decision of the commission to them. Missing this deadline is not grounds for refusing to accept an application. Having recognized the reasons for the omission as valid, the court may restore this period and consider the dispute on the merits.

The decision of the CCC is subject to execution within three days after the expiration of the ten days provided for appeal. In case of non-execution of the decision of the commission within the prescribed period, the employee is issued by the commission on labor disputes a certificate, which is an executive document. The certificate shall not be issued if the employee or the employer has filed an application for the transfer of the labor dispute to the court within the prescribed period. Based on the certificate issued by the labor dispute commission and presented no later than three months from the date of its receipt, the bailiff enforces the decision of the labor dispute commission. If an employee misses the established three-month period for good reasons, the labor dispute commission that issued the certificate may restore this period (Article 389 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Article 389 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation reflects one of the principles of the procedure for considering labor disputes - ensuring the real restoration of violated rights and legitimate interests of employees. This principle is expressed in the fact that if the employer voluntarily does not comply with the decision of the labor dispute body within the period established by law, then this decision is enforced through a bailiff.

The certificate, which has the force of an executive document, shall indicate: the name of the body that made the decision; date of its acceptance and issue of the certificate; surname, name and patronymic of the employee; decision on the merits of the dispute. The certificate is certified by the signature of the chairman of the CCC (or his deputy) and the seal of the CCC.

The bailiff carries out his actions on the basis of the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 No. 118-FZ "On bailiffs", as well as the Federal Law of July 21, 1997 N 119-FZ "On enforcement proceedings".

The justice of the peace, in accordance with Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, considers cases arising from labor relations, with the exception of cases on reinstatement and cases on the resolution of collective labor disputes. Thus, the legislator defined the magistrate as the main body for the consideration of labor disputes. The justice of the peace considers at first instance all disputes under the jurisdiction of the CCC in cases where the CCC in the organization has not been created or has not considered the employee’s application within 10 days (Article 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the employee, employer or trade union protecting the interests of the employee do not agree with the decision of the CCC, at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the CCC does not comply with the law (Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

The District Court of First Instance may hear any individual labor dispute, with the exception of disputes heard by justices of the peace. Directly in the district court, in accordance with Art. 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, disputes about reinstatement are considered.

In connection with the presence of various bodies and instances that consider individual labor disputes, the question arises whether the process of litigation constitutes a single whole, regardless of which bodies and at what level are involved in making a decision, or whether there is an independent litigation: on the one hand, in KTS or higher authorities, and on the other - in the judiciary, as a result of which, in the first case, one should be guided by labor law, and in the second - by civil procedure. To this question, O.V. Smirnov, back in 1981, answered as follows: “since in many countries the judicial authorities, when considering labor disputes, are guided by the norms of civil procedural law, this seems to indicate that we are dealing with the second case. If we proceed from the fact that the concept of "civil process" has developed as opposed to the concept of "criminal process" and this implies the participation of courts in the consideration of cases of a non-criminal nature, then one can hardly object to this point of view, because labor disputes are not criminal cases. But when considering this issue from the standpoint of the branch division of law, there are serious doubts about the correctness of the previous point of view, because it is hardly possible that the proceedings of labor cases are no different from civil ones. The specifics of the consideration of labor cases is determined by the sectoral features of labor law.

Thus, the justice of the peace, the court considering labor cases, is a participant (subject) of labor proceedings and is obliged to act in the spirit of the basic principles of labor law, regardless of whether it acts as a justice body in the first instance, that is, when the employee applied directly to the court, bypassing the CCC, or considering a complaint against the decision of the CCC, when an employee, employer, prosecutor or representative of the trade union body go to court, challenging the decision of the CCC.

The most important from the point of view of the procedure for considering an individual labor dispute are the principles of democracy in the process of considering labor disputes, the free and accessible appeal of employees to the bodies resolving labor disputes, as well as the sequence, staging, non-linearity of actions within each stage and the speed of resolving labor disputes, ensuring real restoration of violated labor rights.

A labor dispute resolved in a general manner by a labor dispute commission is subject to consideration by a court (magistrate): 1) at the request of the employee, employer or the relevant trade union protecting the interests of the employee, when they do not agree with the decision of the CCC; 2) at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the CCC contradicts the law.

The list of disputes subject to judicial review without prior application to the CCC is given in Art. 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Such disputes include, first of all, labor disputes over rights that are of particular importance to the employee, as well as disputes, the consideration of which is associated with certain difficulties. These include disputes: about reinstatement at work, regardless of the grounds for termination of the employment contract; on transfer to another job; on changing the date and wording of the reason for dismissal; on payment for the time of forced absenteeism or performance of lower-paid work; at the request of the employer for compensation for material damage caused by the employee; about refusal to hire; persons who believe they have been discriminated against; persons working under an employment contract with employers - individuals; persons working in an organization where CCCs have not been established; workers of religious organizations (Article 348 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

It can be assumed that labor disputes of the heads of organizations and members of the collegial executive bodies of organizations should be resolved in court, since consideration of their disputes in the CCC is not possible due to the special official position of such persons.

The courts consider labor disputes in the manner of general jurisdiction according to the rules established for the consideration of civil cases in the court of first instance. This applies both to disputes that have not been considered by the CCC, and to disputes that have been previously considered by the commission.

The consideration in the court of first instance of a dispute previously resolved by the CCC does not affect the procedural possibility of the parties to a labor dispute to appeal the decision of the justice of the peace to the appellate instance, the court decision to the cassation instance or by way of supervision. In the case of a cassation appeal against a court decision, the proceedings are carried out in accordance with the norms of civil procedural legislation.

With the introduction of the institution of magistrates, the consideration of labor disputes (with the exception of disputes about reinstatement) was also referred to the competence of these bodies and enshrined in Art. 23 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Justices of the peace do not have the power to reverse a decision made by a labor dispute committee. An appeal against the decision of the CCC is the transfer of an individual labor dispute to the court.

Given the existence of various bodies whose competence includes the protection of rights and legally protected interests, it is necessary to correctly and accurately delineate their powers in this area, which is what the institution of jurisdiction serves.

The multi-level and multi-link nature of the system of courts of general jurisdiction necessitates the delimitation of jurisdictional powers, firstly, vertically, that is, between courts of different levels and links of the judicial system (for example, between federal district courts and justices of the peace; between lower and higher federal courts) ; secondly, horizontally, that is, between courts of the same link, as well as within the same court. Horizontal differentiation of jurisdictional powers takes place: 1) in case of differentiation of powers of the same type of courts of the same link; 2) in case of differentiation of jurisdictional powers between military and non-military courts; 3) in case of delimitation of collegiate and sole powers of the same court (military and non-military), empowered by law to consider a specific legal case in the first instance.

So, the procedure for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction to consider and resolve legal cases subordinate to them is regulated by such an institution of civil procedural law, which is called jurisdiction. In this regard, jurisdiction is a set of civil procedural rules that establish the rules for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction.

Depending on the criterion for delimiting the powers of courts of general jurisdiction, there are two main types of jurisdiction: generic (subject) and territorial (local). Generic jurisdiction is characterized by the fact that the criterion for delimiting the jurisdictional powers of courts and judges is the genus, type, category of cases. Territorial jurisdiction is determined on the basis of such criteria as place, territory.

In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employee has the right to use another form of transferring an individual labor dispute to the court - by filing a statement of claim for the restoration of violated subjective rights if, within the established 10-day period, the labor dispute commission did not consider it on its merits. The provisions of Art. 390 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation do not determine the generic jurisdiction of an individual labor dispute transferred from the CCC to the judicial authorities.

According to Art. 28 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the claim is brought to the court at the place of residence of the defendant. A claim against an organization is filed with the court at the location of the organization. If the employer is an individual, then the claim is brought to the court at his place of residence. If a legal entity acts as an employer, the claim is brought at the location of the body of the legal entity (according to paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Civil Code, the location of the legal entity is the place of its state registration).

In accordance with Art. 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, jurisdiction is possible at the choice of the plaintiff: a claim against an organization arising from the activities of its branch or representative office can also be brought to the court at the location of its branch or representative office (clause 2, article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); claims for the restoration of labor rights can also be brought to the court at the place of residence of the plaintiff (clause 6, article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); workers' claims for compensation for harm to health caused to them in the performance of their duties can be brought at the place of harm, as well as at the place of residence of the employee (clause 5, article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation); Workers' claims for the restoration of labor rights may be filed at their place of residence.

The choice between several courts, which, according to Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, has jurisdiction over the case, belongs to the plaintiff (Clause 10, Article 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

It should be noted that with the creation in Russia of the institute of magistrates, the problem of bringing the consideration of a labor dispute closer to the location (place of residence) of the parties to the labor conflict is not being solved. The content of labor disputes is very diverse. Therefore, the indication in the law of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace of all disputes arising from labor relations, with the exception of cases of reinstatement, does not yet speak of clarity in the delineation of jurisdiction between district courts and justices of the peace. Thus, it is not entirely clear to which branch of the system of general courts jurisdiction should include disputes, although they do not contain requirements for reinstatement, but which raise the question of the legality of terminating an employment contract (for example, changing the wording of the reasons for dismissal, collecting wages during forced absenteeism without reinstatement) or forcing the employer to conclude an employment contract (for example, when challenging a refusal to hire). Disputes between magistrates and district courts regarding the jurisdiction of a number of cases arising from labor relations do not at all contribute to the timely and correct resolution of this category of cases. In addition, as a result, a significant number of labor cases under the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace become the subject of resolution on the merits of the district court. This is due to the fact that the district court, being the appellate instance in relation to justices of the peace, considers cases on appeal in full using the procedure peculiar to the court of first instance. And since decisions made in labor cases are quite often appealed to a higher court, a labor dispute, as a rule, is "doomed" to a second consideration on the merits in a district court.

The current Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation did not clearly define the powers of the district court as an appellate instance when considering complaints or representing a prosecutor against decisions of a justice of the peace. It is advisable to fix in the procedural legislation the rules for consideration of such complaints and submission, as well as for cassation complaints. The consideration of the case must be collegial, and the limits of the consideration of the case in the court of appeal must be similar to those established by Article 347 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The plaintiff in the case, as a rule, is the employee whose rights are violated. Due to the fact that labor legal personality begins at the age of 15, a minor worker can also be a plaintiff in a case.

The interests of the employer are represented in court by an authorized official of the employer. A power of attorney on behalf of an organization is issued signed by its head or another person authorized to do so by its constituent documents, sealed with the seal of this organization (part 3 of article 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

When considering an individual labor dispute by a justice of the peace in accordance with Part. 3 Article. 3 of the Federal Law of December 17, 1998 No. 188-FZ "On Justices of the Peace in the Russian Federation", the justice of the peace considers the labor dispute alone.

When considering an individual labor dispute in a federal court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation (Article 7), civil cases in the courts of first instance are considered by the judges of these courts individually or collectively in the cases provided for by federal law. If the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation grants the judge the right to consider civil cases and perform individual procedural actions, he acts on behalf of the court. Cases on complaints against judicial decisions of justices of the peace that have not entered into legal force are considered on appeal by the judges of the respective district courts alone. Civil cases in the courts of cassation and supervisory instances are considered collectively.

In cases stipulated by federal law, cases in the courts of first instance are considered collectively by three professional judges (Part 1, Article 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Art. 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge, within five days from the date of receipt of the statement of claim by the court, is obliged to consider the issue of accepting it for his proceedings. On the acceptance of the application for court proceedings, the judge issues a ruling, on the basis of which a civil case is initiated in the court of first instance.

After accepting the application, the judge issues a ruling on preparing the case for trial and indicates the actions to be taken by the parties, other persons participating in the case, and the timing of these actions to ensure the correct and timely consideration and resolution of the case. Preparation for trial is mandatory in every civil case and is carried out by the judge with the participation of the parties, other persons participating in the case, their representatives (Article 147 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

An individual labor dispute on reinstatement must be considered and resolved before the expiration of a month from the date of acceptance of the application for proceedings (part 2 of article 154 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

When applying to the court for resolving a labor dispute, the parties should keep in mind that at the same time, the court may consider the employee’s claim for reinstatement and the employer’s complaint against the order of the state labor inspectorate to reinstate an illegally dismissed employee (Article 373 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Each employee or representative of the trade union committee can receive free legal assistance in the labor dispute that has arisen in the legal consultations of the trade union bodies.

During the consideration of a labor dispute in court, the parties may conclude a settlement agreement. The terms on which the parties came to an amicable agreement must be reflected in the minutes of the court session and signed by the parties. A settlement agreement cannot be approved if it in any way infringes on the labor rights of an employee or, in circumvention of the law, is aimed at relieving the relevant persons from liability. By concluding a settlement agreement in court, the parties are not entitled to change the amount of compensation for harm caused to the health of an employee in the performance of labor duties.

A dispute that has arisen between the parties can be eliminated (settled) voluntarily by their amicable agreement and without going to court. The content of such an agreement varies. It is often expressed in temporary concessions by the parties while maintaining the legal relationship, it may consist in an agreed clarification and clarification of the terms of the legal relationship, interpreted by the parties in different ways and therefore gave rise to disagreements in its implementation.

In all these cases, regardless of whether such an agreement is aimed at changing the legal relationship (transformative action) or at confirming it (declarative action), the parties undertake to consider the legal relationship existing between them in the form provided for by the agreement (constitutive action), and be guided by them in their behavior (regulative action). Therefore, the settlement agreement concluded by the parties in the specified content is a transaction, in this case, an agreement in a civil law sense.

A settlement agreement concluded without going to court is out-of-court. An extrajudicial settlement agreement (agreement), if one of the parties evades its execution, and the other goes to court, will be one of the circumstances of the case.

Outside the court, an agreement can also be reached on a dispute in which a civil case has been initiated in court. Such an agreement acquires legal significance only after its approval by the court.

Certification and approval by the court of a settlement agreement are necessary conditions for giving them legal significance. Without them, such an agreement cannot be considered complete and valid.

Thus, a judicial settlement agreement is a deal concluded by the parties during the consideration of the case and approved by the court, according to which the plaintiff and the defendant, by mutual concessions, redefine their rights and obligations and terminate the litigation that has arisen between them. The new rules of legal relations of the parties established by this agreement are obligatory for execution, and they must be guided by them in their behavior.

A judicial amicable agreement can only be concluded between the parties and, therefore, cannot be made by other persons participating in the case (third parties without independent claims, the prosecutor, etc.). Before approving a settlement agreement, the court is obliged, with the participation of the parties, to carefully check whether it is legal, whether it violates anyone's rights or legally protected interests (part 2 of article 39, article 173 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The settlement agreement, drawn up by the parties in the form of an independent document, is attached by the court to the case. Such registration is of particular importance when considering a case in the cassation and supervisory instances.

A court settlement agreement must meet certain requirements:

a) as a civil law transaction, a judicial settlement agreement is subject to the norms of civil law. A settlement agreement that suffers from at least one of the vices with which the law associates the invalidity of the transaction (Articles 168-179 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) cannot be approved by the court;

b) the purpose of the judicial amicable agreement is the final elimination of the dispute between the parties, with which the requirements for clarity of the content of the amicable agreement, full certainty and unconditionality of the rights and obligations of the parties established by the agreement are connected.

The terms of the settlement agreement approved by the court ruling must be set out clearly and definitely, so that there are no ambiguities and disputes about its content during execution.

Upon the entry into force of the court ruling to terminate the proceedings on the basis of a settlement agreement approved by it, the possibility of a second appeal to the court with the same claim is excluded (paragraph 5 of article 220, article 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

The settlement agreement of the parties is one of the forms of free settlement of the dispute by the parties without the use of state coercion. The court must take the initiative in conciliating the parties. The possibility of resolving the dispute by amicable agreement should be clarified by the judge in the process of preparing the case for trial, at the beginning of the trial in the court of the first, appeal and cassation instances (Articles 172. 327, 350 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation).

If the settlement agreement is not executed voluntarily, it is enforced.

The trend towards an increase in the number of labor disputes considered in courts allows us to conclude that after the entry into force of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the number of such cases and their complexity increase. The legislator and the judiciary are faced with the question of the need to create a Labor Procedure Code (TPK) and special courts to resolve labor disputes.

If the adoption of the TPC, taking into account the novelty of this major normative act, will undoubtedly require considerable time, then the creation of a specialized link in the judicial system can be carried out in a relatively short time.

Conflict situations in production are common within the work team, in which employees carry out professional activities on a daily basis. They arise as a result of a conflict of interests of employees, misunderstandings, personal characteristics of each person. To resolve such disputes between employees, there are special bodies for the consideration of labor disputes. They can be created in institutions at the place of work of citizens, they resolve both individual and collective disputes.

In some organizations, conflict resolution is practiced by the higher authorities of this institution, which is provided as a way of pre-trial proceedings. The judicial procedure is considered by citizens in the future as a body that resolves labor disputes in a critical situation, when none of the previously implemented methods has any effect.

When creating a commission on labor disputes, the following nuances must be taken into account:

You can apply to discuss conflict situations within 3 months from the moment it was discovered that the applicant's rights were violated. If this deadline is missed, an application is made with a request to restore it, but for a justified good reason ();
consideration of a labor dispute takes place within a clearly defined period - 10 calendar days from the date the employee submits the relevant application ();
they can consider the issue without an employee only if he has a good reason for not appearing. In the absence of the first time, the consideration is postponed, the second time the dispute is removed from the agenda ();
the commission has the right to request documents necessary for the proceedings from the participants, invite witnesses, other employees related to the case ();
the number of members participating in the commission must include half of the representatives from the employer, and the second half - employees;
the decision is made by secret ballot by a majority vote of the members who are present at the meeting ();
the decision is executed within 3 days after its issuance ()

Important! If the labor dispute after the commission is not resolved in a constructive manner, then the next body where information about the state of affairs is sent may be the judicial body.

An employee or employer can go to court not only to file claims, but also to appeal the decision of the commission if it does not meet their needs and desires.

Commissions on collective labor disputes

There are situations when the conflict does not arise between the boss and the subordinate, but between entire work teams and their superiors.

They are more complex labor disputes that need to be resolved with the help of a conciliation commission. It is also created when a dispute arises in the case of sending a statement by one of the parties about its organization. This conflict resolution mechanism has the following features:

employees have the opportunity to put forward their demands and organize strikes (refusal to perform duties in a temporary mode) -;
the process consists of 2 stages, which include - discussion of the issue by the conciliation commission, and then, with the participation of a mediator and / or labor arbitration ();
employees have the right to organize rallies, demonstrations, meetings that they need in support of their put forward demands ();
if it is not possible to resolve the labor dispute with the help of the conciliation commission, then this procedure takes place with the help of an intermediary who is not a member of the team and does not belong to employers, his candidacy is selected and approved ();
in the absence of mutual understanding on the issue under discussion with the participation of an intermediary or if it is impossible to select a suitable candidate for the role of an intermediary, the case is considered in labor arbitration, which includes arbitrators who are in the public civil service ();
in case of intransigence of the parties by arbitration, the parties have the opportunity to apply to the judicial authority.

Attention! Bodies that consider labor disputes in the format of collective proceedings are the main subject of pre-trial hearings and try to find a compromise solution to the problem through a constructive dialogue.

Judicial procedure for consideration of labor disputes

Such a body as a court in the system of establishing justice between the disputing parties can be considered the end point where you can turn to resolve the issue of interest. His verdict is also subject to appeal, but to a higher authority.

1. Individual service disputes (hereinafter - service disputes) are considered by the following bodies for the consideration of individual service disputes (hereinafter - bodies for the consideration of service disputes):

1) commission of the state body on service disputes;

2) court.

2. The procedure for considering service disputes in service dispute resolution bodies is governed by this Federal Law and other federal laws, and the procedure for considering cases on service disputes in courts is also determined by the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.

3. The commission of the state body on official disputes (hereinafter referred to as the commission on official disputes) is formed by the decision of the representative of the employer from an equal number of representatives of the elected trade union body of this state body and the representative of the employer.

4. Representatives of the elected trade union body of this state body are elected to the commission on official disputes at the conference of civil servants of the state body. Representatives of the representative of the employer are appointed to the commission on service disputes by the representative of the employer.

5. The Commission on official disputes has its own seal. Organizational and technical support for the activities of the commission on official disputes is carried out by a state body.

6. The commission on official disputes elects the chairman and secretary of the commission from among its members.

7. An official dispute is considered by the commission on official disputes if the civil servant, independently or with the participation of his representative, did not resolve the differences in direct negotiations with the representative of the employer.

8. A civil servant or a citizen who enters the civil service or was previously in the civil service may apply to the commission on official disputes within three months from the day when he knew or should have known about the violation of his right.

9. In case of missing the time limit established by paragraph 8 of this article for valid reasons, the commission on official disputes may restore this period and consider the service dispute on the merits. A written application of a civil servant or a citizen entering the civil service or previously in the civil service received by the commission on official disputes is subject to mandatory registration by the said commission on the day of its submission.

10. The commission on official disputes is obliged to consider an official dispute within ten calendar days from the date of submission of a written application.

11. The procedure for consideration of an official dispute by the commission on official disputes, as well as the procedure for making a decision by the commission on official disputes and its execution is regulated by federal law.

12. The decision of the commission on official disputes may be appealed by any of the parties to the court within ten days from the date of delivery of a copy of the commission's decision to it. In case of missing the established period for valid reasons, the court may restore this period and consider the service dispute on the merits.

13. The courts consider official disputes based on written statements of a civil servant or a citizen entering the civil service or previously in the civil service, a representative of the employer or a representative of the elected trade union body of this state body, if at least one of them does not agree with the decision of the commission on official disputes or if a civil servant or a representative of the employer goes to court without applying to the service dispute commission, as well as at the request of the prosecutor, if the decision of the service dispute commission does not comply with federal laws or other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation.

14. Official disputes on written applications are considered directly in the courts:

1) a civil servant or a citizen who was previously in the civil service - on the reinstatement in the previously occupied position of the civil service, regardless of the grounds for termination or termination of the service contract, release from the occupied position of the civil service, dismissal from the civil service, on changing the date of release from the occupied position civil service and the wording of the reason for the said release, on transfer to another position in the civil service without the consent of the civil servant, on payment for the time of forced absenteeism or on payment of the difference in monetary allowance for the time of performance of official duties in a lower-paid civil service position;

2) a representative of the employer - on compensation to civil servants for harm caused to a state body, unless otherwise provided by federal laws.

17. Terms of applying to the court for consideration of a service dispute and the procedure for exempting civil servants from court costs, the procedure for making decisions on official disputes related to the release from a substituted civil service position and dismissal from the civil service, transfer to another civil service position without the consent of a civil servant , the procedure for satisfying the monetary claims of civil servants, the execution of decisions on the reinstatement in a previously occupied civil service position and the limitation of the reverse recovery of amounts paid by decision of the authorities for the consideration of service disputes, are established by federal law.

The concept of an individual labor dispute

According to Art. 381 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an individual labor dispute is an unresolved disagreement between an employer and an employee on the application of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, a collective agreement, an agreement, a local regulatory act, an employment contract (including the establishment or change of individual working conditions), which are declared to the body for the consideration of individual labor disputes.
A labor dispute is a dispute on the establishment of a new labor subjective right, for example, the right to receive a higher salary or benefits and benefits, as well as a dispute between the parties regarding the scope of their mutual rights and obligations already established in regulatory legal acts and an employment contract.
An individual labor dispute is a dispute between an employer and a person who previously had an employment relationship with this employer, as well as a person who expresses a desire to conclude an employment contract with the employer, if the employer refuses to conclude such an agreement.

Legal relations related to a labor dispute arise on the basis of a statement received by a legal body, for example, a labor dispute commission (CTS) or a court, about a disagreement between the parties to an employment contract on the application of labor legislation or agreements on working conditions, as well as on issues compensation for material damage or compensation for moral damage. The labor dispute ends with the adoption by the court (or CCC) of a decision to recognize the subjective dispute or to refuse to satisfy the claim, as well as the application of sanctions and other measures to prevent further unlawful actions of the employer or employee.
The protection of the labor rights of employees is the means and methods established by the state by which the protection of labor rights and interests is carried out, as well as their forced restoration in case of violation and compensation to the employee in full for material damage and moral damage.
The basis for the emergence of labor disputes is the failure to perform or improper performance of labor duties by one of the subjects of the labor relationship.

Bodies for consideration of individual labor disputes

According to Art. 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, individual labor disputes are considered by labor dispute commissions (CTS) and courts within the limits of the rights granted to them.
The question of where a specific individual labor dispute should be placed - in the commission on labor contracts or in court, is determined in accordance with their jurisdiction.
By jurisdiction, all labor disputes can be divided into the following:
- in a general manner, when the CCC is a mandatory primary stage, after which the dispute may be submitted to the court;
- directly in court, bypassing the CCC.
Assigning a labor dispute to one of the above groups means that other bodies are either not authorized to consider this dispute, or can consider it only after it was initially considered by the CCC. The correct determination of the jurisdiction of a particular labor dispute plays a large practical role, since the resolution of the dispute by an incompetent body has no legal force and cannot be executed in the prescribed manner.
If the labor dispute is individual, then its nature is established - on the application of labor legislation or on the introduction of new working conditions by agreement of the subjects of the employment contract, then it is determined from which legal relationship it (the dispute) follows.
An individual dispute about the establishment of new working conditions is not under the jurisdiction of either the CCC or the court, although it arose from an employment relationship. Disputes from legal relations closely related to labor relations are also outside the jurisdiction of the CCC and the court, for example, disputes about the application of legislation on pensions and benefits, because these relationships are governed by social security laws.
The established procedure for considering individual labor disputes, including their jurisdiction, does not deprive the employee of the right to apply to a higher authority in the order of subordination or to the court with a complaint against the actions (inaction) of a particular head of the organization. The employee has the right to appeal the illegal actions of the employer to other bodies, for example, to the prosecutor's office, the federal labor inspectorate and other structures that oversee and monitor compliance with labor and labor protection laws.
It is also necessary to take into account the effect on the territory of the Russian Federation of the Law on Justices of the Peace.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the obligation of the state and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of workers. Therefore, every employee, if he considers his labor rights violated, has the right to qualified legal assistance and, above all, to judicial protection.

The procedure for consideration of labor disputes

According to Art. 383 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for considering individual labor disputes is regulated by the Labor Code and other federal laws, and the procedure for considering cases on labor disputes in courts is determined, in addition, by the civil procedural legislation of the Russian Federation.
Features of consideration of individual labor disputes of certain categories of employees are established by federal laws.
Labor disputes are divided into claims and non-claims, individual and collective. It is customary to classify disputes of an actionable nature as disagreements arising in connection with the application of regulatory acts on labor and labor contracts, and to disputes of a non-contact nature - disagreements arising in connection with a change or the establishment of new conditions that are not regulated by regulatory legal acts and labor agreements.
Labor disputes regarding the application of labor legislation and other normative acts on labor of a collective agreement, agreements are considered by labor dispute commissions and courts of general jurisdiction, as well as justices of the peace. A mandatory out-of-court procedure for the consideration and resolution of a labor dispute is established in cases specified by labor legislation and the Code of Civil Procedure.
To determine the jurisdiction of a labor dispute means to establish a legal body that is authorized to resolve a specific labor dispute and make a decision on it that is binding on the parties. So, KTS is subordinate to all individual labor disputes of a claim nature, with the exception of those that can be resolved directly in court.
The CCC has jurisdiction over disputes on the recovery of wages and its amount, on the application of disciplinary sanctions, etc. The CCC of a structural unit, organization can only consider labor disputes within the powers of the unit, organization.
The procedure for considering a labor dispute is dictated by its nature. For example, a dispute over the recognition of a disciplinary sanction as illegal is resolved by the CCC, and a labor dispute over illegal dismissal for a systematic violation of labor discipline is resolved directly in court. This means that, according to the content of the labor dispute, it is possible to determine its jurisdiction, namely, in which initially legal body the labor dispute should be considered - initially in the CCC, and then in court, or directly in court.
At the first stage, the labor dispute should be considered between the subjects of the employment contract by mutual agreement of its parties. Only in the event that disagreements between the subjects of an employment relationship have not been resolved either through their direct negotiations or with the participation of representatives of an elected trade union body, the parties to the dispute may seek the assistance of a legal body.

Individual and collective labor disputes are considered by various bodies.

Bodies for the consideration of individual labor disputes are provided for in Art. 382 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, according to which these bodies are the commission on labor disputes and the court.

A labor dispute is considered by a labor dispute commission if the employee has not been able to independently resolve the disagreements that have arisen with the employer. Individual labor disputes are resolved by the commission in a pre-trial order.

The labor dispute commission is formed in accordance with Art. 384 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The commission is formed at the initiative of the employees or the employer from an equal number of representatives of the employees and the employer. Representatives of employees to the commission on labor disputes are elected by the general meeting (conference) of employees of the organization or delegated by the representative body of employees with subsequent approval at the general meeting (conference) of employees of the organization and appointed by the head of the organization.

By decision of the general meeting, commissions may be formed in structural divisions of the organization. At the same time, individual disputes may be considered in labor dispute commissions of structural divisions of organizations within the powers of these divisions.

If the individual labor dispute was not considered by the commission within ten days, and also if the decision of the commission is appealed to the court, the individual labor dispute is considered by the court.

Cases arising from labor relations, except for cases of reinstatement, fall within the competence of justices of the peace on the basis of subpara. 7 p. 1 art. 3 of the Justice of the Peace Act. If there are no justices of the peace in some constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the indicated category of cases is considered by federal judges of district courts.

Cases arising from labor relations are considered in the manner determined by the civil procedural legislation.

Collective labor disputes are considered by the following bodies:

1) conciliation commission;

2) labor arbitration.

At the same time, the conciliation commission, unlike labor arbitration, is a mandatory body that considers a collective labor dispute.

The conciliation commission is a temporary body for the consideration of a collective labor dispute (clause 1 of the Recommendations on the organization of work on the consideration of a collective labor dispute by a conciliation commission). It considers collective labor disputes regarding the establishment and change of working conditions (including wages), the conclusion, change and implementation of collective agreements, agreements, as well as in connection with the refusal of the employer to take into account the opinion of the elected representative body of workers when adopting acts containing labor law norms, in organizations.

The conciliation commission is created by the parties to the collective labor dispute within 3 working days from the moment the collective labor dispute begins. The decision to create a conciliation commission is formalized by the order (instruction) of the employer and the decision of the representative of the employees of the organization.

The employer has no right to evade the creation of a conciliation commission and participation in its work. In addition, he must create the necessary conditions for the work of the commission.

Labor arbitration is a temporary body that is created if the parties to a collective labor dispute have entered into an agreement in writing on the mandatory implementation of its decisions (clause 2 of the Recommendations on the organization of work on the consideration of a collective labor dispute in labor arbitration).

When considering a collective labor dispute, labor arbitration is created in the following cases:

1) evasion by one of the parties to a collective labor dispute from participating in the creation or work of a conciliation commission;

2) failure by the parties to reach an agreed decision on the candidacy of the mediator within 3 working days;

3) consideration of a collective labor dispute between employees and employers of organizations in which strikes are prohibited or restricted by the legislation of the Russian Federation;

4) failure to reach an agreement when considering a collective labor dispute by a conciliation commission, if the parties have chosen to consider the dispute in labor arbitration as the next conciliation procedure.

So, the conciliation commission and labor arbitration consider and resolve a collective labor dispute. The labor legislation specifies another body that facilitates the settlement of collective labor disputes. This is the Service for Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes.

The Service for the Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the Service) is a system of state bodies (subdivisions) formed as part of the federal executive body for labor, the relevant executive bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local governments, designed to assist in resolving collective labor disputes by organization of conciliation procedures and participation in them (part 1 of article 407 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

This body operates on the basis of the Regulations on the Service for Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes.

The Service is a state body that promotes the resolution of collective labor disputes by organizing, participating in conciliation procedures, as well as implementing measures to prevent and resolve collective labor disputes.

According to part 2 of Art. 407 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, clause 4 of the said Regulations, the Service for Settlement of Collective Labor Disputes exercises the following powers:

1) carry out notification registration of collective labor disputes;

2) checks, if necessary, the powers of the representatives of the parties to the collective labor dispute;

3) forms a list of labor arbitrators;

4) trains labor arbitrators who specialize in resolving collective labor disputes;

5) identifies and summarizes the causes and conditions for the emergence of collective labor disputes, prepares proposals for their elimination;

6) provides methodological assistance to the parties to a collective labor dispute at all stages of resolving these disputes;

7) organize the financing of conciliation procedures in accordance with the established procedure;

8) organizes work on the settlement of collective labor disputes in cooperation with representatives of employees and employers, state authorities and local governments;

9) prepares up-to-date information on collective labor disputes (strike) in the regions of the Russian Federation, measures taken to resolve them;

10) organizes work on the selection and advanced training of employees of the service, as well as on the training and advanced training of mediators and labor arbitrators specializing in resolving collective labor disputes;

11) develops proposals for conducting research work on the problems of settling collective labor disputes;

12) studies, summarizes and disseminates domestic and foreign experience in organizing work to prevent and resolve collective labor disputes, publishes an information bulletin.

Employees of the Service can be involved as experts, mediators and even labor arbitrators in the conduct of conciliation procedures to resolve disputes. At the same time, they are obliged to keep state, official and commercial secrets.

Employees also have the right to freely visit organizations (branch, representative office, other separate structural unit) in order to resolve collective labor disputes, identify and eliminate the causes that give rise to these disputes.

The system of bodies considering labor disputes. Labor dispute authorities

Commissions on collective labor disputes

Judicial procedure for consideration of labor disputes

More on the topic Bodies dealing with labor disputes: