Employee permission to work: obvious and unclear. A legal fact establishing labor relations. An employee who has actually been admitted to work.

In itself, the actual admission of an employee to work is justified, is not recognized as a violation (up to a certain point) and is approved by law. This provision is strictly regulated, has its own deadlines and additional points, the implementation of which is mandatory. If these points are violated, we can talk about a violation of the law and the responsibility borne by the authorized person who assigned official duties to the employee.

Regulatory regulation

It can be considered effective even if it was not formalized in writing, but in fact the employee began to perform his duties. This situation has the formulation - actual admission to work. It has regulatory regulation, the violation of which becomes the basis for prosecution. FD is a position clearly limited by a time frame.

The responsibility that an employer bears in relation to an employee who is not authorized to work, arises in the case when the employer refuses to recognize the emergence of an employment relationship within a certain time and. The legislation of Russia establishes, setting out the principles on this issue in Government Resolutions and approved laws:

• Part 1, Article 67 and Article 61 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulates labor relations between an employee and an employer with actual access,
• Article 2 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulates issues of payment upon actual access of the employee,
• Part 1, Article 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation regulates issues of administrative liability that an employer bears in cases of violation of the law,
• Article 391 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation serves as the basis for regulating disputes on FD issues,
• Part 4, Article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulates issues of access to work.

What is it used for and what does it mean?

There are several moments when this situation can arise:

• when an employee is undergoing an internship and the employer is in no hurry to conclude an employment contract prematurely,
• The employer evades paying taxes and registers,
• The employer calculates this way.

The first point is quite justified. In cases where a probationary period has been completed, which fully confirms the employee’s qualifications, the employer subsequently enters into an employment contract with him, thereby complying with all established standards. The duration of the internship is from 2 to 5 days, sometimes longer, before passing the qualification test.

An employer has the right to refuse employment after completing an internship only if the employee cannot confirm his qualifications. and are a violation. However, in this case, the law also provides for full official employment, including internship days.

The last two points are an outright violation. An employee who is actually allowed to perform work, but has not entered into an employment contract with the employer, is unprotected in several directions at once:

• Does not have the right to receive social security and social protection, like other employees,
• He may be disadvantaged in payment for his work,
• Upon dismissal, such an employee cannot count on any payments,
• He doesn’t, etc.

Therefore, we can talk about insecurity at all levels.

How is FD issued?

According to the law, FD is not a probationary period; it is already the beginning of working activity. Despite the fact that in the case of FD an employment contract has not been drawn up, the employment relationship has already entered into force. The actual access of an employee without drawing up an employment contract has clear boundaries - 3 days. That is, after this period, the contract must be drawn up in writing, otherwise this moment can be considered a violation, which entails negative consequences. Since the FD is the beginning of labor activity, it must also be documented. Who issues the FD?

• Directly from management
• An authorized person who can prove these powers, i.e. provide documents.

Management or an authorized person draws up a memorandum authorizing the employee’s access to work. This note must be submitted to the accounting and personnel departments. It is compiled in any form. It must indicate the employee’s full name and the date when he starts work. After three days, an employment contract will be concluded with the employee on the basis of this note. The report must be registered in the local acts of the enterprise.

How to prove it

In cases where disputes arise on this issue, the employee is required to prove the FD for work. How can I do that?

• Sometimes this can be quite difficult, especially in cases where the work is not related to production or paperwork. In such a situation, photographs from the place of work and videos can be useful. If there were CCTV cameras at the workplace, the court has the right to demand the provision of information from these media.
• If the employee worked in production or worked with papers, then the documents or the product he produced, respectively, can serve as evidence.
• If an enterprise or organization operates a pass system, then an employee’s pass can be reliable evidence in such a situation.
• And, of course, testimony of witnesses who can confirm the fact of the employee’s presence at the workplace and the performance of his job duties.

This process is quite complex; the burden of proving FD in court falls entirely on the employee.

Responsibility for actual permission to work

In this situation, both the employer or his authorized representative and the employee himself may be held liable. In addition to these persons, liability is also borne by the employee who was not authorized to involve the employee in work activities, but voluntarily took the initiative and allowed the employee to work.

Punishments against the employer.

Full text of Art. 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation with comments. New current edition with additions for 2019. Legal advice on Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

If an individual was actually allowed to work by an employee not authorized by the employer, and the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that arose between the person actually allowed to work and this employer as an employment relationship (conclude with the person actually admitted to work for work, employment contract), the employer in whose interests the work was performed is obliged to pay such an individual for the time actually worked (work performed).

An employee who is actually allowed to work without being authorized to do so by the employer is held accountable, including material liability, in the manner established by this Code and other federal laws.

(The article was additionally included from January 1, 2014 by Federal Law of December 28, 2013 N 421-FZ)

Commentary on Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

The commented article establishes the consequences of actual admission to work by an unauthorized person, which are aimed at protecting the rights of the employee who carried out the work, as well as bringing to justice an unscrupulous employee who was actually allowed to work without being authorized by the employer.

It should be noted that Part 1 of the commented article provides for the occurrence of appropriate consequences if a number of conditions are met:
- the individual was actually allowed to work by an employee not authorized by the employer;
- the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer as an employment relationship (conclude an employment contract with the person actually admitted to work).

If the described situation arises, the employer in whose interests the work was performed is obliged to pay such an individual for the time actually worked (work performed).

A person who is allowed to work without the appropriate authority may be subject to administrative liability. In accordance with Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, actual admission to work by a person not authorized to do so by the employer, if the employer or his authorized representative refuses to recognize the relationship that has arisen between the person actually admitted to work and this employer as an employment relationship (does not conclude with the person actually admitted to work, employment contract), entails the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of three thousand to five thousand rubles; for officials - from ten thousand to twenty thousand rubles.

In addition, Art. 233 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the financial liability of a party to an employment contract arises for damage caused by it to the other party to this contract as a result of its culpable unlawful behavior (actions or inaction). Thus, in relation to the provisions of the commented article, an employee who has actually been allowed to work without being authorized to do so by the employer is the party that has caused damage to the employer in the amount (in the general case) of the wages of the person actually allowed to work.

Another comment to Art. 67.1 Labor Code of the Russian Federation

1. For the concept of “a representative authorized by the employer”, see Art. Art. 16, 57, 67 Labor Code and comments to them.

2. The commented article establishes the legal consequences of actual admission to work by an unauthorized person, which occurs both for an individual who has started work in the manner of actual admission, and for an employee who has been unreasonably admitted to work.

3. Actual admission to work is a volitional act of two parties - the person entering work as an employee, and the employer, acting personally or through his authorized representative.

The only circumstance discrediting in this case the actual admission to work as a legal fact is that this admission was carried out by an improper entity, i.e. in the employment contract there is no expression of the will of the party who is the employer, and therefore there is no employment contract itself. Elimination of this defect is sufficient for actual admission to work to be the basis for the emergence of an employment relationship.

4. Since the employee who has actually been admitted to work does not have the authority to hire workers, his actions in themselves cannot serve as the basis for the emergence of an employment legal relationship with an individual admitted to work, and accordingly, do not give rise to the employer’s obligation to draw up an agreement with this face in writing. However, if these actions are approved by the employer or his authorized representative, the employment relationship should be considered to have arisen from the moment the individual admitted to work actually begins work. Approval can be achieved through a written employment contract with this person.

5. Evidence of the intention of an individual who has been unreasonably admitted to work to enter into an employment relationship is his actions after admission, carried out as an employee (performing a quantitatively and qualitatively determined measure of work, obeying internal labor regulations, etc.), or readiness to carrying out such actions (this person, in accordance with the current internal labor regulations, regularly comes to the assigned workplace in anticipation of instructions from the employer to perform specific work).

6. In case of unjustified admission to work, labor relations with the person admitted to work do not arise, however, the employer is obliged to pay this person for the time actually worked (work performed). The amount of payment for time worked (work performed) can be determined in relation to the conditions of remuneration established for the corresponding labor function (position). If a person unjustifiably admitted to work did not perform any real labor activity, but at the same time, in accordance with the internal labor regulations, was at the place determined for him upon admission as a workplace, this time is paid according to the rules established for payment of downtime. reasons beyond the control of the employer and employee (see Article 157 of the Labor Code and commentary thereto).

7. The actions of an employee who has actually been allowed to work without being authorized by the employer are guilty and unlawful in nature and, therefore, can be qualified as a disciplinary offense, which is the basis for bringing this employee to disciplinary liability (see Art. Art. 192, 193 Labor Code and comments thereto). In the event that, as a result of an unjustified admission to work, the employer suffered direct actual damage, the guilty employee may be held financially liable (see Chapter 39 of the Labor Code and the commentary thereto).

Consultations and comments from lawyers on Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

If you still have questions regarding Article 67.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and you want to be sure of the relevance of the information provided, you can consult the lawyers of our website.

You can ask a question by phone or on the website. Initial consultations are held free of charge from 9:00 to 21:00 daily Moscow time. Questions received between 21:00 and 9:00 will be processed the next day.

"Personnel officer. Labor law for personnel officers", 2008, N 6

Actual permission to work

In accordance with Art. 67 of the Labor Code, when a person begins work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, the employment contract is considered concluded, even if it is not in writing. This situation is called actual permission to work. Actual admission is considered an improper procedure for concluding an employment contract, but, despite this circumstance, it is expressly provided for in Art. Art. 61 and 67 of the Labor Code as the basis for the emergence of labor relations.

Currently, in enterprises, especially in medium and small businesses, people hired for work are organized with a so-called internship. Its duration is set from two to five days, but it happens that the very next day a person is suspended from work. The suspension from work is explained by the fact that the director did not sign the employment contract and the hiring order. The question arises: is it possible to protect your right to work in such a situation? Let's turn to the law and the explanations of the highest judicial body of the Russian Federation.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 28, 2006 No. 63 introduced changes and additions to the well-known Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.” In paragraph 1, an explanation appeared that a labor dispute that arose in connection with a refusal to hire is not a dispute about reinstatement, since it does not arise between the employer and the person who previously had an employment relationship with him. However, paragraph 10 of the same Resolution clarifies that when considering disputes related to a refusal to hire, it is necessary to check whether the employer made an offer about available vacancies, whether negotiations on employment were conducted, i.e. whether there was a conversation with agreement on the position, specialty, qualifications, working and rest conditions, and payment issues. No less important is the grounds on which this person was denied an employment contract.

This clarification is of great importance for protecting your right to work. In the practice of formalizing labor relations, quite often, after a conversation in the personnel department, the applicant is sent to the head of the section (head of the department), i.e. to the future immediate supervisor. They explain to the person that if the site manager “likes you”, then we will apply for a job. The head of the site, wanting to find out professional qualifications, assigns an “internship”. The applicant is given special clothing, and during the working day he demonstrates his professional suitability. The next day, an unexpected circumstance happens. The applicant is denied employment, explaining that the director did not sign the employment contract and the hiring order. In the course of resolving a labor dispute, taking into account the absence of a written employment contract and a hiring order, it is concluded that no employment relationship has arisen with this employee.

But it turns out that not everything is so simple. In accordance with Art. 67 of the Labor Code, when a person begins work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, the employment contract is considered concluded, even if it is not in writing. This situation is called actual permission to work. Actual admission is considered an improper procedure for concluding an employment contract, but, despite this circumstance, it is expressly provided for in Art. Art. 61 and 67 of the Labor Code as the basis for the emergence of labor relations. In this situation, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract in writing and provide it to the employee for signature no later than 3 working days from the moment he began to perform his job duties. During the same 3 days, the employer is obliged to prepare an order for employment, announce it to the employee against signature, and give a copy of this order to the employee upon his request.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you that labor relations, in accordance with the law, arise from the first day of the so-called internship. A person admitted to such a professional suitability test is recognized as an employee, i.e. a full-fledged party to the resulting labor relations. If further employment is refused, the employee has the right to file a claim against his employer for reinstatement. Such a claim is considered directly in the district (city) court in accordance with Art. 391 Labor Code.

V.Vanyukhin

Moscow State

open university,

retired federal judge

supervisor

legal center "Science"

Signed for seal

The Labor Code aims to streamline the relationships between labor parties, therefore the positions enshrined in it have legal consequences. This also applies to the grounds for the emergence of these relations, one of which is actual admission to work.

Let’s analyze how this can manifest itself in practice, what the consequences are for the employee and employers, and what the consequences may be in the event of dishonest fulfillment of one’s legal duties.

What does “approved to work in fact” mean?

The law requires the employer to properly formalize the relationship that arises with the employee, that is, to sign an employment contract. Not all employers are scrupulous about legal requirements: many prefer to use the labor of employees without burdening themselves with written responsibilities. In such cases, the work agreement is concluded verbally and the employee, on behalf of the manager or his representative, begins to perform the work entrusted to him. This means that he actually admitted to it.

IMPORTANT! From the point of view of the Labor Code, such registration of labor relations is improper.

When starting work without drawing up a document on mutual obligations, the employee does not familiarize himself with and does not sign a number of other mandatory documentation:

• inner order rules;
• employment order;
• collective agreement;
• job description;
• safety requirements, etc.

An employee who does not know his rights may think that the other party has complete control over his working hours, wages and working conditions. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation protects the weaker side of labor relations and legally equates actual admission to work to the full-fledged conclusion of an employment contract, even if it is not properly formalized.

Lines from the Labor Code of the Russian Federation

Equalization of the rights of actual admission to work and the employment contract was still in effect in Soviet labor legislation (Article 18 of the Labor Code of the RSFSR). In the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the legal regulation of this problem is significantly expanded:

• in Art. 16 states that the proper and timely execution of an employment contract does not matter: if an employee has started work, it means that he has entered into an employment relationship with all legal consequences;
• Art. 20 defines an employee as an individual who has entered into an employment relationship with another party;
• Art. 61 specifies the moment the employment relationship comes into force - this is the day of signing the employment contract or the actual admission to work, which was authorized by the employer’s representative or simply knew about it;
• Art. 67 requires the employer to properly draw up a written employment contract with the employee who has started work within three days, and gives the employee the opportunity to reasonably demand this;
• Art. 91 indicates the terms of remuneration, in particular, that labor remuneration is accrued from the first day of work, that is, actual admission to it.

Employment contract = actual admission

The legal equality of these two methods of starting an employment relationship lies in their legal consequences. It is considered that an employee who has started work has already concluded an employment contract orally, and its written execution cannot be delayed for a period exceeding three working days.

Will an employment contract drawn up with such a delay be somehow different from a standard one? Differences:

1. Difference in dates. The contract is not signed “retroactively”, therefore, it will have a date later than the one when the employee actually started work (the start date of work is indicated separately in the text of the contract).
2. The nuance of entry into force. This agreement will come into force from the day of admission to work, and not from the moment of conclusion, as is usually the case.

Thus, actual admission to work is not an exemption from drawing up an employment contract, but only a small delay, a permissible exception to the general rule of employment, when the contract is first signed, and then the employee starts work.

How is actual permission to work obtained?

The law does not provide regulations according to which the employer secures the employee’s right to begin work on his instructions and with his knowledge. This procedure can be prescribed in the internal regulations of the organization. It could be:

• oral agreement;
• the employee writing an application for permission to work;
• order or order for admission;
• an official (report) note recording the fact of starting work at a new workplace.

It is of fundamental importance that only a representative of the employer vested with these powers can be allowed to work. These powers must be specified in local acts or constituent documents of the organization.

NOTE! In practice, workers, when starting work, cannot check whether the person who authorized them has such authority. Therefore, a rule has been adopted according to which in the courts such doubts are interpreted in favor of the employee, unless the employer proves that he purposefully familiarized the applicant with the authority or lack thereof.

Evidence of actual permission to work

If the employer has not recorded in any way the moment of admission of the new employee, how can this be proven if it is necessary to protect their rights?

First, after three days, you should request a written document on the employment relationship. If the employer does not do this, he falls under administrative liability.

Evidence of employment relationship may serve in court:

• pass to the territory of the organization;
• providing the employee with a workplace;
• acts on receipt of stationery, materials, workwear, etc.;
• document confirming a medical examination;
• employee's name in plans, programs, lists, etc.;
• audio or video recordings where the employer’s representative gives instructions to the employee, and the employee performs the work;
• witness statements;
• an agreement on material liability (sometimes concluded “bypassing” the labor agreement, where there is interaction with certain values);
• other evidence.

Actual admission and probationary period

Can we talk about entrance examinations if it is required to start work so urgently that it is not possible to first draw up an employment contract, where all the conditions of the probationary period are usually prescribed? Usually not. Actual admission to work, as if by default, fixes the suitability of the employee accepted in this way.

However, by agreement of the parties, entrance examinations can be completed before the conclusion of an employment contract. To do this, you will have to spend time and effort signing a separate agreement on this issue, as required by Part 2 of Art. 70 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Only in this case can it be transferred to the employment contract. It must be executed in 2 copies - for each party.

If such an agreement has not been drawn up, the employer does not have the right to establish a probationary period upon subsequent execution of the employment contract.

Consequences of admission to work after the fact

If, within the three-day period provided by law, the employer has properly formalized the resulting employment relationship, no additional legal consequences arise. It’s just that a new employee has appeared on his staff, another representative of the staff. Consequences occur if the employee’s rights are violated by improper performance of the employer’s duties:

1. If permission to work was obtained from a person who did not have such authority, and the employer refuses to hire him in the proper manner, he is obliged to pay the failed employee remuneration for the work performed in proportion to the time actually worked. The guilty employee who has exceeded his authority is subject to disciplinary action. If, as a result of this admission, real damage occurred, it will be recovered from the employee, but financial liability will also fall on the unauthorized representative (Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
2. If the employer has not drawn up a written employment contract within the three-day period established by law, the employee has the right to demand this. If the employer refuses, you can seek rights through court or the labor inspectorate. For violating the law, the employer faces a serious fine, the amount of which may vary depending on the type of violation:
   • evasion of registration;
   • untimely registration;
   • improper registration;
   • replacement of an employment contract with a civil law one.
3. There is no employee signature on the employment contract. Such an agreement is considered to be executed improperly, for which the employer is responsible. This does not exempt him from labor relations, which are still considered concluded upon admission to work.

Admission to work as the basis for the emergence of labor relations provided for in Art. 67 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. However, the lack of clear legal regulation of this institution leads in practice to situations, some of which do not end in favor of workers, and similar situations are resolved in different ways. Let us consider this issue in more detail and give examples from judicial practice.

Permission to work must be carried out by the employer or his representative

According to Art. 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is concluded in writing, drawn up in two copies, each of which is signed by the parties. If the employment contract was not drawn up in writing, but the employee began work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, then the employment contract is considered concluded. In this case, the employer is obliged to draw up an employment contract with this employee in writing no later than three working days from the date the employee is actually allowed to work.
So, the most important questions are who the employer’s representative is and in what form the consent or instruction of the employer or his representative to begin work must be expressed. Let's answer them in order.
According to paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (as amended on December 28, 2006), the representative of the employer in this case is a person who, in accordance with the law, other regulatory legal acts, constituent documents of a legal entity (organization) or local regulations or by virtue of an employment contract concluded with this person is vested with the authority to hire workers, since it is in this case that when an employee is actually allowed to work with the knowledge or on behalf of such a person, an employment relationship arises (Article 16 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) and the employer may be required to formalize an employment contract with this employee in a proper manner. If the employment contract is signed by the first person, then he acts on the basis of the charter, if someone else - on the basis of a power of attorney. Thus, if, for example, the head of one of the organization’s divisions allows an employee to work without having the appropriate authority, then the employer will not have the obligation to conclude an employment contract with this employee. Let us illustrate this with an example from judicial practice.

Example. According to the decision of the Zlatoust City Court of the Chelyabinsk Region dated 04/08/2010, S. performed the duties of a cook in cafe "A" CJSC from 10/19/2009. Before the start of the employment relationship, there was a verbal agreement on the terms of remuneration: the main part of the salary was 4,330 rubles, additional monetary remuneration was 10% of the actual products produced and sold. The employment relationship was not properly formalized, wages were not paid, and therefore, from December 27, 2009, the plaintiff refused to continue the employment relationship with the defendant. The plaintiff asked to recognize the employment contract between him and the company as concluded from the moment of actual admission to work, to recover from the defendant wages in the amount of 11,120 rubles, additional monetary remuneration - 23,178.038 rubles, payment for the work of a dishwasher performed part-time - 9670 .33 rub.
The representative of the defendant ZAO indicated in a written response that he did not agree with the claim, since the ZAO did not have and does not have an employment relationship with the plaintiff. In October 2009, S. applied for the position of production manager, but S. was denied this because he did not meet the requirements for the head of a structural unit. Subsequently, the plaintiff expressed a desire to get a job as a cook, but S. was not satisfied with the form of the contract concluded during employment, as well as the requirements for financial liability, and therefore the plaintiff did not begin to perform his job duties, the order to hire the plaintiff was not issued, the salary no fees were assessed or paid.
The court, having examined the presented materials, found S.’s claims not subject to satisfaction. In particular, attention was drawn to the fact that a written employment contract was not concluded with the plaintiff, and no order for his employment was issued. From the explanations of the plaintiff, witnesses T., Kh., D., N. it follows that he was allowed to work in the cafe by the founder I., who verbally reported the amount of wages.
The court indicated that the plaintiff was allowed to work by an improper person, since I., being the founder of the closed joint-stock company, did not have the right to hire and fire employees of the organization, or the right to set wages. No evidence was presented to the court that founder I. was authorized to enter into employment contracts on behalf of the company.
The court decided that the employment contract between S. and the closed joint-stock company cannot be recognized as concluded, since the plaintiff did not provide reliable evidence confirming his admission to work by an authorized representative of the employer. Consequently, interrelated claims for the collection of arrears of wages cannot be satisfied.

The given example indicates that the provision of Art. 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the admission of an employee to work can be used to evade the employer from complying with labor law standards, such as: concluding a written employment contract, paying wages. In this case, even the presence of evidence of permission to work is not taken into account. In addition, in practice there are situations when the employer denies even the fact of concluding an employment contract, the employee’s permission to work is attributed to an inappropriate person, while the employer avoids providing the employee with social insurance guarantees. Let's look at an example.

Example. According to the ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated February 24, 2010 in case No. 33-.../2010, I. was in an employment relationship with Cozy House LLC, working as a janitor since May 5, 2009. When she was hired, a written employment contract was concluded with her, she wrote an application for employment and handed over her work book to the HR department employees. On May 18, 2009, the defendant paid her an advance in the amount of 2,380 rubles. I believed that the deputy was actually allowed to work. director P., chief accountant, head of the personnel department O., foreman F., who provided I. with equipment and special clothing. After treatment from 05/21/2009 to 07/03/2009, the defendant refused to fulfill his duties, including payment of temporary disability benefits, unreasonably denying the employment relationship between the parties. I. filed a claim in court to establish the fact of being in an employment relationship, to recognize the dismissal from work as illegal, to recover benefits for temporary disability, lost wages and vacation pay, to recover earnings for forced absence, for the delay in issuing a work book, and to compel reinstatement work book with relevant entries made in it regarding the recovery of compensation for moral damage.
Representatives of the defendant Cozy House LLC, by proxy G., M., O., did not recognize the claim, referring to the fact that the plaintiff was allowed to work by an unauthorized person, but the defendant was not hired and no employment contract was concluded with I.
When considering the case, the court was critical of the testimony of witnesses who confirmed the plaintiff’s arguments. It was also noted that there were no vacant positions in the staffing list of Cozy House LLC, one of which the plaintiff applied for. The plaintiff’s argument about the conclusion of an employment contract is refuted by the submitted timesheets for the period from May to June 2009, and salary slips. The fact that the plaintiff was allowed to work as site foreman F. on the instructions of the deputy. Director for General Affairs P., does not confirm the conclusion of the employment contract. Witnesses F., P. testified that the admission took place at the request of the plaintiff, who wanted to try herself as a janitor, and did not take place for the purpose of fulfilling the employee’s labor function.
In rejecting the claim, the court of first instance was guided by paragraph 12 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.” In accordance with the Charter of Cozy House LLC presented to the court, only the director of the company, V., has the exclusive right to hire and dismiss employees, who denied at the court hearing that the plaintiff was hired, P. is the deputy director of Cozy House LLC for general issues, and She does not have the right to hire and fire employees, just as the site foreman at Cozy House LLC F. does not have such powers. For unauthorized admission of I. to work, by order of the director of the company, the deputy director of Cozy House LLC P. was reprimanded, which also confirms Arguments of the director of Cozy House LLC about his ignorance of the plaintiff’s permission to work.
Having considered the arguments set out in the cassation appeal, the court did not find any grounds for canceling the court decision, left it unchanged, and left the cassation appeal unsatisfied.

At the same time, certain court decisions suggest that the provisions of Art. 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation can be interpreted in two ways, namely: the admission of an employee to work by an inappropriate person is regarded as an omission of the employer and it is indicated that it was the employer who did not take all measures within his power to comply with labor law standards. The result is that the employer is brought to administrative responsibility, in particular for violating the norms of migration legislation.

Example. According to the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District dated March 19, 2009 N KA-A40/1989-09 in case N A40-73086/08-120-396 of the Federal Migration Service of Russia in the Eastern Administrative District on October 2, 2008, an inspection of Belstroy LLC was carried out for compliance with the migration legislation of the Russian Federation. During the inspection, it was revealed that the company involved V.R., a citizen of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, in labor activities as an auxiliary worker. M. in the absence of a permit to carry out labor activities. On 10/03/2008, the migration service drew up a protocol on an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 18.15 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. On October 17, 2008, the company was found guilty of committing this administrative offense, and a sanction was imposed in the form of a fine in the amount of 300,000 rubles.
Believing that there were no grounds for prosecution due to the lack of proof of the alleged administrative offense, the company went to court. In particular, it was indicated that between 000 "Belstroy" and LLC "ArtBusinessStroy" an agreement dated 01.08.2008 N 103/BL was concluded on the provision of labor resources, guided by which "ArtBusinessStroy" together with the foreman M.D. V. recruited citizen V.R. to work. M. without the direct participation and knowledge of the General Director of the LLC about the admission to work of V.R. M. However, this argument was rejected by the court of cassation.
The court stated that the involvement of a foreign citizen in work as a foreman without the knowledge of the general director of the company in this case does not exclude the company’s guilt, since Belstroy LLC did not take all measures depending on it to comply with the rules and regulations, for violation of which Part 1 Art. 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability. At the same time, there is no evidence in the case that he lacks the ability to comply with the violated rules and regulations.
Under such circumstances, there are no grounds for canceling judicial acts: Decisions of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated December 15, 2008, Resolutions of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 10, 2009 in case No. A40-73086/08-120-396, which refused to declare illegal and cancellation of the decision in the case of an administrative offense.

Evidence of permission to work

In addition to the question of the person who has the right to allow an employee to work, the question of what is considered admission to work remains controversial. Let's consider a decision in which the court did not take into account the fact that the person had access to the employer's territory after the expiration of the employment contract, and these actions, in the court's opinion, did not indicate the employee's permission to work and the existence of an employment relationship.

Example. From the Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District dated October 09, 2007 in case No. A82-15771/2006-9, it is known that the municipal health care institution of the Clinical Emergency Medical Hospital named after N.V. Solovyova (hereinafter - the Institution, Hospital) filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Yaroslavl Region against the limited liability company "Yartrans-2001" (hereinafter - the Company) for recovery on the basis of Art. 67 Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation “On the protection of the health of citizens” the cost of services when providing medical care to the Company’s employee, Sergei Ivanovich Dzhurkin, injured as a result of an industrial accident.
It was established that on September 21, 2005, gas-electric welder Makarov carried out electric welding work on a metal structure on the territory of the Company. Manager Nesterov, who determines the scope of work, went on vacation on September 21, 2005. Dzhurkin independently decided to help the gas-electric welder, for which he climbed onto the stage. Makarov refused Dzhurkin's help. The latter fell while descending from the scaffolding, as a result of which he was seriously injured and was taken to the Hospital, where he received medical assistance (in the amount of 93,880 rubles. 54 kopecks). Having considered that the costs of Dzhurkin’s medical care should be borne by the Society, the Institution filed a claim with the arbitration court, citing, in particular, paragraph 1 of Art. 5 of the Federal Law of July 24, 1998 N 125-FZ "On compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases", according to which, in particular, individuals performing work at work are subject to compulsory social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases. on the basis of an employment agreement (contract) concluded with the policyholder.
Having refused to satisfy the Hospital's claims, the court concluded that the Company did not enter into any civil law agreements with the victim. The entrepreneur and Dzhurkin entered into an employment contract for the period from 05/03/2005 to 08/03/2005 (on the day of the incident the contract expired).
Since Dzhurkin S.I. was not an employee of any of the defendants and the injury he received cannot be classified as industrial - this conclusion of the court was justified, in particular, by the fact that from the documents submitted to the case it followed that manager Nesterov did not have the authority to conclude an employment contract. There is no evidence in the case materials that Dzhurkin was allowed to work with Godovikov’s knowledge. The entrepreneur notified Dzhurkin about the termination of the fixed-term employment contract. The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Volga-Vyatka District ruled that under these circumstances, the Arbitration Court of the Yaroslavl Region rightfully rejected the Hospital’s claims to recover the costs of medical care for citizen Dzhurkin at the expense of the Company and the entrepreneur. The cassation appeal was rejected.
At the same time, the applicants’ arguments were not taken into account that Dzhurkin was allowed to work with the knowledge of the employer’s representative - manager M.I. Nesterov; guards freely allowed him into the territory; the victim had his own changing room, which indicates that the parties had concluded an employment contract, and also that, according to the conclusion of the state labor inspector, the person responsible for violations of the requirements of legislative and other regulatory legal acts, local regulations that led to the accident was recognized Godovikov P.I.

However, another court decision indicates that even the issuance of a pass to enter a building for the purpose of performing labor functions is an actual admission to work and obliges the employer to comply with labor legislation.

Example. FAS North Kazakhstan Region, by a Resolution dated May 12, 2009, in case No. A53-20105/2008-C4-4, refused to satisfy the application of the NOU VPO "Institute of Management, Business and Law" (hereinafter referred to as the institution) to recognize as illegal and cancel the resolution of the Federal Migration Service for the Rostov Region dated 08.10 .2008 N 021168 on bringing to administrative responsibility for committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Art. 18.15 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the form of 250 thousand rubles. fine
In the Resolution of the FAS SKO indicated that the institution was brought to administrative responsibility in connection with its violation of the rules for attracting and using foreign labor established by Federal Law of July 25, 2002 N 115-FZ “On the Legal Status of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation” (as amended. dated June 28, 2009) (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 115-FZ). In particular, the institution hired a citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Mamedova, as a cleaner, who did not have a work permit issued in accordance with the requirements of the law. In addition, according to paragraph 4 of Art. 13 of Law N 115-FZ, the employer and customer of work (services) have the right to attract and use foreign workers only if they have permission to attract and use them.
When drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense, it was indicated in paragraph 1 of the note to Art. 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: the involvement of a foreign citizen or stateless person in labor activities in the Russian Federation means admission in any form to the performance of work or provision of services or other use of the labor of a foreign citizen or stateless person.
The arguments set out in the cassation appeal about the absence of an imputed offense in the company’s actions due to the fact that Mamedova is not an employee of the company were not accepted as justified. In accordance with Art. Art. 16, 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the basis for the emergence of labor relations between an employee and an employer is the actual admission to work with the knowledge or on behalf of the employer or his representative, regardless of whether the employment contract is properly drawn up. Mamedova was given a pass to enter the building in order to carry out her work duties. Under the above circumstances, the court came to the conclusion that bringing the institution to administrative liability under Part 1 of Art. 18.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation is lawful, but the applicant’s argument that in the case under consideration the institution is not an employer is untenable.

Probation

According to Art. 70 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when concluding an employment contract, by agreement of the parties, it may provide for the condition of testing the employee in order to verify his compliance with the assigned work. In the case where an employee is actually allowed to work without drawing up an employment contract, a probationary clause can be included in the employment contract only if the parties formalized it in the form of a separate agreement before starting work. If such an agreement was not reached before the employee was allowed to work, it is considered that the employee began work without testing. Let's consider the Decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated January 25, 2010 in case No. 2-126/2010, according to which an employee who was actually admitted to work and dismissed due to an unsatisfactory test result was reinstated at work, in particular, due to the fact that that no probationary period was established upon hiring.

Example. T. from May 27, 2009 to July 31, 2009 worked for S. as a storekeeper in a household goods warehouse. When applying for a job, I did not enter into any contracts and was not familiar with the employment order. According to an oral agreement with the defendant, the salary should have been 15,000 rubles. monthly, but after two months T. never received a salary. Upon returning to work on August 1, 2009, the employer reported that T. had been fired, without explanation, and that the work book would be given to him later. Subsequently, on 08/03/2009, the defendant handed over his work book, which contained a record of dismissal on the basis of order dated 07/01/2009 No. 15 under clause 4, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that T. actually worked until 07/31/2009 inclusive. In connection with the above, T. considered his dismissal illegal, since the employer did not comply with the dismissal procedure, since T. was not notified of the dismissal three days in advance. In this regard, he asked the court to reinstate him at his previous job as a storekeeper and to recover unpaid wages for time worked in the amount of RUB 32,565.39. and during forced absence - 19,888.42 rubles. based on 15,000 rubles. per month on the day of the decision, compensation for moral damage in the amount of two monthly salaries.
The defendant S. and her representative Z. did not recognize the claim and asked to refuse it. Z. explained that the plaintiff was hired on May 26, 2009 as a storekeeper apprentice with a probationary period of three months and a salary of 5,000 rubles. per month (employment order dated May 26, 2009 N 12). The entry in the work book about the plaintiff’s acceptance to the position of storekeeper was made erroneously, since, according to order No. 12 dated May 26, 2009, T. was accepted as a storekeeper’s apprentice with a probationary period of 3 months. Individual Entrepreneur S. has an institutional order that all persons hired must undergo a probationary period, and a payment system has been established, according to which the salary is 5,000 rubles. In this regard, the plaintiff’s demands for the recovery of wages at the rate of 15,000 rubles. considers unfounded. Also, from the cash receipts submitted by the employer, it follows that the plaintiff’s salary was 5,000 rubles. per month. The plaintiff finds the plaintiff’s reference to a certain note, a digital record indicating the amount of wages of 15,000 rubles, unfounded, since the record does not contain any indication of who compiled it, there is no date or time period for which the funds were issued. Considers demands for compensation for forced absence and moral damage to be unfounded. The plaintiff refers to the fact that he was not notified three days in advance, the order was violated, and this could not entail a violation of his personal non-property rights.
IP S. additionally explained that the plaintiff was dismissed as having failed to complete the probationary period due to the fact that on July 31, 2009 T. tried to steal from the territory of the warehouse entrusted to him a bag containing 25 packs of women's tights belonging to IP E., but, being noticed by S.’s husband, he returned this package to the warehouse, having previously left it in his room for changing clothes. On this fact, S. drew up an act in the presence of the plaintiff and witnesses, but T. refused to sign the act and give any explanations on it. Not wanting to spoil the plaintiff’s work record, S. decided, without involving the police, to terminate the employment relationship with the plaintiff as someone who had not completed the probationary period, having previously notified T. about this. An employment contract was not concluded with the plaintiff. Regarding wages, S. explained that for June 2009 the plaintiff received wages in the amount of 4,072 rubles, but the plaintiff did not sign the statement and did not appear for wages for July 2009. Tax deductions for T. were made on time and in full based on the salary amount of 5,000 rubles. S. agrees that she made a mistake in the entry in the work book about the plaintiff’s dismissal; instead of the date 08/01/2009, 07/01/2009 was indicated, and is ready to correct the mistake voluntarily. By order of December 30, 2009 N 6, T. was reinstated at work as a storekeeper apprentice from December 30, 2009 with a salary of 5,000 rubles, a copy of the order and the employment contract were sent to the plaintiff by registered mail, but to date the plaintiff has not begun to perform his duties.
The court, having examined the case materials, made a decision to partially satisfy T.’s demands. The following was noted: according to the entry in the work book, on May 26, 2009, T. was hired by IP S. as a storekeeper with a probationary period of 3 months, dismissed under clause 4, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of order No. 15 dated 07/01/2009. In addition, the staffing table dated 01/01/2009 contains 2 storekeeper units and 2 seller units, each with a salary of 5,000 rubles, while there is no storekeeper apprentice unit. From the pay slips, cash receipts and time sheets submitted to the court for the period from May 26 to July 2009, it followed that T.’s salary for the specified period amounted to 11,040.53 rubles, but no evidence was provided of its receipt plaintiff.
The fact that the plaintiff was in an employment relationship with the defendant in the period from May 26 to July 31, 2009, as well as the non-conclusion of an employment contract with the employee, was not disputed at the court hearing by IP S. Regarding the probationary period, the court noted that if the probationary period was not agreed upon when hiring, the employee is considered accepted without probation. The employer does not have the right to set a probationary period for the employee by order of hiring, if the employment contract does not provide for a probationary period.
Taking into account this, the court decided to partially satisfy T.’s demands, namely: to reinstate him at work with IP S. as a storekeeper from 08/01/2009, to collect from IP S. in favor of T. arrears of wages in the amount of 11,040 .53 rubles, wages for the period of forced absence in the amount of 24,401.52 rubles, compensation for moral damage in the amount of 2,500 rubles. In addition, a state fee in the amount of 1263.26 rubles was collected from IP S. to the federal budget.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not indicate in what form such a testing agreement should be concluded. It would seem that the wording of the article indicates the need for a written agreement. However, the decision of the Tevriz District Court dated 03/09/2010 indicates the opposite. When making a decision, the employment contract proposed for conclusion and signed by the employer, but not signed by the employee, was taken into account.

Example. G.V. F. worked in the defendant’s organization as a foreman of industrial training from 06.11.2009. By order of January 29, 2010, he was dismissed on the basis of clause 4, part 1, art. 77 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. He considers the dismissal illegal, since he was hired for a probationary period of three months, during this period there were no disciplinary sanctions and no grounds for dismissal under clause 4 of part 1 of Art. The director did not have 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and has not worked since January 30, 2010. He asked to be reinstated at work as a foreman of industrial training at the BOU NPO "P.", to recover from the BOU NPO the average salary for the period of forced absence from 01/30/2010 to the day of reinstatement, to recover compensation for moral damage in the amount of 12,000 rubles.
At the court hearing G.V. F. additionally explained that he actually started working on November 6, 2009, read the hiring order against signature, and received a copy of the job responsibilities. Before hiring a group of welders G.V. F. fulfilled the duties agreed upon when hired, in particular, improved the material resources of the laboratory. An employment contract signed by the employer personally with him, G.V. F. refused to sign because he was not satisfied with clause 7.3 regarding the possibility of involving the employee in other work outside his profession. I agreed with the rest of the terms of the employment contract, including the probationary period.
Compiled in relation to G.V. F. considers the reports of being late for work to be far-fetched and untrue, since he warned the employer's representative - the secretary - about the reasons for the delay. With an order to warn about the dismissal of G.V. F. was informed, but no one introduced him to the dismissal order. Orders on instructions to G.V. F. considers other work, not in line with his official duties, illegal, since there were no emergency incidents that allowed him to be transferred to other areas. Believes that he was illegally dismissed, including under clause 4 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since it refers to Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, and when applying for employment to other organizations, questions arose as to what exactly was the reason for his dismissal.
The representative of the defendant is the director of the BOU NPO "P." K.V. A. did not admit the claim at the court hearing. In particular, he explained that during November 2009 G.V. F. worked flawlessly. In December 2009, repeated delays to work and unauthorized departures from work without explanation, and refusals of instructions to carry out work began. G. required explanations about the reasons for his delays, which he submitted untimely, with persuasion; he received reports and reports from employees; personal conversations did not lead to consensus. G.V. F. did not survive the probationary period, and therefore was dismissed at the initiative of the employer before the expiration of the probationary period - for violations of labor discipline, violations of labor regulations, and refusal to carry out assignments.
Having considered the case materials, the court refused to satisfy the claims of G.V. F. to the BOU NPO Omsk Region "P.", recognizing the employment contract dated November 6, 2009 as concluded, since it was drawn up by the employer, signed by the director, but despite the fact that it was not signed by G.V. F., the latter agreed with all the terms of the employment contract, including the establishment of a probationary period of three months. Disagreement with the content of clause 7.3 of the employment contract cannot be considered a basis for recognizing the employment contract in question as not concluded. In addition, an analysis of the issued order for the employment of G.V. F. and an employment contract with G.V. F. shows their compliance with each other according to the basic conditions of labor relations.
Order No. 03 dated January 22, 2010, issued by acting. O. director, in accordance with Art. 71 Labor Code of the Russian Federation G.V. F. was warned of his upcoming dismissal on January 28, 2010 due to an unsatisfactory test result. The reasons given in this order are: violation of internal labor regulations and labor discipline, refusal to carry out assignments. With the said order G.V. F. was familiarized with personal signature on January 22, 2010, but did not agree with the order.
By order of January 29, 2010 No. 7 G.V. F. was dismissed as having failed the test in accordance with clause 4, part 1, art. 77 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. This order provides as a basis a personal warning about impending dismissal due to an unsatisfactory test result. The order was issued and signed by the director. This order by G.V. F. refused to sign, as evidenced by the act dated January 29, 2010, drawn up by the employees of the institution. Work record book of G.V. F. was received on the day of dismissal, January 29, 2010, as evidenced by the logbook for the issuance of work books at the BOU NPO and the signature of the person responsible for issuing, G.’s personal signature in receiving the work book. The work book also contains an entry dated January 29, 2010 No. 20 about “dismissal under clause 4, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation after the expiration of the probationary period.”
Acts of absence from work without a valid reason were recognized as legal and justified. The court is critical of the plaintiff’s arguments that he was not brought to disciplinary liability for violations, and therefore there were no grounds to dismiss him as having failed the test, since the imposition of disciplinary sanctions is the right of the employer, the employer took these circumstances into account in the conclusions about the results tests.
Assessing the evidence collected in the case in its totality and interrelation, the court came to the conclusion that recognizing the plaintiff’s test results as unsatisfactory in this case is justified. Under such circumstances, the court found no grounds to satisfy G.V.’s claim. F. for reinstatement at work, recovery of earnings for the period of forced absence and compensation for moral damage.
At the same time, the court believes that when issuing the order dated January 29, 2010 No. 7 on termination of the employment contract (employment relationship) with the employee, clause 4, part 1, art. 77, not Art. 71 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which has a more precise basis, and not a general basis for termination of an employment contract. Taking into account the above and Part 5 of Art. 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the court changed the wording of the grounds for dismissal of G.V. F. from clause 4, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation to the following: “Dismiss the master of industrial training by profession “welder” G.V.F. in connection with an unsatisfactory test result, according to the first part of Article 71 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.”

Taking into account the above, in order to avoid possible legal disputes when the employee is actually admitted to work, it is recommended to enter into a written agreement with him on a probationary period. In addition, it is possible to indicate the probationary period in the internal labor regulations or other local regulations, which the employer is obliged to familiarize the employee with when hiring (Article 68 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Material liability of the employee

Concluding a liability agreement is of great importance for both the employee and the employer. How is this issue resolved when an employee is allowed to work? If, in accordance with regulatory legal acts, the person being hired belongs to the category of employees with whom an agreement on full financial liability can be concluded, does this mean that the employer must conclude this agreement before this employee is allowed to work? How will this issue be resolved if, before the employee was allowed to work, an agreement on financial liability was not concluded and subsequently the employer indicates the need to conclude one, and the employee refuses to sign the corresponding agreement?
Let us turn to the explanation given in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (as amended on December 28, 2006). From paragraph 36 of the said Resolution it follows that if the performance of duties for the maintenance of material assets is the main labor function of the employee, which is agreed upon when hiring, and in accordance with the current legislation, an agreement on full financial responsibility can be concluded with the employee, about which the employee knew that refusal to conclude such an agreement should be considered as a failure to fulfill labor duties with all the ensuing consequences. If the need to conclude an agreement on full financial liability arose after concluding an employment contract with the employee and is due to the fact that, due to changes in current legislation, the position held by the employee or the work performed is included in the list of positions and works replaced or performed by employees with whom the employer can enter into written agreements on full financial responsibility, but the employee refuses to enter into such an agreement, the employer, by virtue of Part 3 of Art. 74 of the Code is obliged to offer another job, and in the absence of it or the employee refuses the proposed job, the employment contract is terminated with him in accordance with clause 7 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Code (an employee’s refusal to continue working due to a change in the terms of the employment contract determined by the parties).
Considering the above, we recommend that when admitting an employee to work, separately stipulate that his position is classified as one of those positions for which it is possible to conclude an agreement on full financial liability, and confirm this by familiarizing the employee with the relevant local regulations or indicating this provision in a written agreement.

Example. B. worked for G. as a salesperson in the store "M" from 08/28/20** to 10/03/20**, B. was provided with a passport, a new work book (B. had never worked anywhere before) and later an INN, but G. ... did not conclude a written employment contract with B., did not issue an order to hire him, out of the promised salary of 8,000 rubles. paid only an advance in the amount of 2000 rubles, in addition, she allowed me to take food for lunch in the amount of 830 rubles. 03.10.20** B. resigned of his own free will, but G. refused to give B. a paycheck and work book, citing the fact that B. had a shortage of goods and did not have a pension insurance certificate.
B. asked to recover in his favor arrears of wages, taking into account overtime work, average earnings for the period of forced absence from 10/04/20** to 12/14/20**, compensation for moral damage, average earnings for the delay in issuing his work book from 10/03. 20** on the day of the decision.
G. filed counterclaims for recovery of material damage caused as a result of a shortage of goods, indicating that during the period of B.’s work as a seller in the “M” store, two audits of the goods were carried out: 08/30/20** an audit was carried out on the transfer of material valuables under financial responsibility to sellers N. and B., after which, in the period from 08/30/20** to 10/01/20**, they sold the goods at retail. Based on the results of the second audit, a shortage was identified. G. decided to withhold part of B.’s wages, and asked to recover the other part of the shortfall from B.
The court, having examined the case materials, decided to partially satisfy B.’s claims. It was stated that, despite the fact that the employment contract between individual entrepreneur G. and B. was not properly drawn up, during the trial it was established with certainty and was not denied by defendant G. that employee B. actually started work with the knowledge of G. . (confirmed by B.’s pay slips, as well as time sheets for August, September and October 20**), therefore the employment contract is considered concluded and, accordingly, labor relations have arisen between employee B. and employer G., which are regulated Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other labor legislation of the Russian Federation. It was noted that G. violated the procedure for hiring B. (after actually being allowed to work, she did not draw up an employment contract with B. in writing, did not issue an order to hire B., did not draw up a work book and insurance certificate in the manner prescribed by law state pension insurance).
Refusing G.'s claims for recovery of damages from B. in connection with the shortage of goods, the court proceeded from the fact that the plaintiff in G.'s counterclaim did not present to the court evidence that she had concluded a written agreement with the seller B. in accordance with the procedure established by law an agreement on full financial liability, as well as a written agreement on collective financial liability, taking into account the fact that in the store "M" during the period of B.'s work there were also sellers, it was not possible to differentiate the responsibility between them due to the nature of the work he performed, as well as the force of the established procedure for maintaining financial reporting documentation for individual entrepreneur G. Since the materials submitted by G. from the audits carried out on 08/30/20** and 10/03/20** were not signed by any of the store employees, as well as by the entrepreneur G. himself, it is currently established that who, to whom and in what volume transferred material assets is not possible, therefore these documents do not confirm the fact that any inventory assets were transferred to B. under full financial responsibility. The invoices presented by G. for the period from August to October 20** do not confirm this circumstance, since these documents do not contain the signatures of the seller B. on his acceptance of the goods, and also since the goods indicated in the invoices were accepted during the specified time period by various persons, which also excludes the possibility of establishing the amount of B’s financial liability. There is also no evidence that indisputably demonstrates the guilt of employee B. in causing material damage.
Taking into account the above, the court decided to recover from G. in favor of B. unpaid wages for the period from 08.28.20** to 10.02.20** in the amount of 6292 rubles. taking into account income tax, the average earnings for the delay in issuing a work book for the period from 10/03/20** to 02/03/20** in the amount of 23,796.52 rubles. taking into account income tax, compensation for moral damage in the amount of 1000 rubles. In addition, a state fee in the amount of 1,302.66 rubles was collected from G. The rest of B.'s claims were denied. G.'s claims for recovery of material damage from B. were denied.

The second example considers a situation where, upon hiring, an agreement on financial responsibility was concluded with an employee, but when transferring to another department, a new agreement was not drawn up, and the transfer itself was not documented. The court refused to recover material damage caused to the employer by the lack of property, pointing out that the agreement on financial liability concluded when hiring in one department does not extend to labor relations after the employee is transferred to another department.

Example. According to the decision of the Gorno-Altai City Court of the Altai Republic in the case dated April 12, 2010, issued in accordance with the claim of LLC "***" for the recovery of the amount of material damage caused by an employee in the performance of work duties, the defendant has worked at LLC "** since * 2007 *" salesperson in the perfume department of the store. In 2007, she was transferred to the position of food seller and performed work related to the storage, packaging and distribution of food products. The transfer was not formalized by order, since an employment relationship arose with the defendant on the basis of actual admission to work as a salesperson in the grocery department. Since * 2008, the defendant began to go on sick leave and submit certificates of incapacity for work to the plaintiff. In * 2008, in connection with the defendant’s submission of sick leave for maternity leave, it became necessary to conduct an inventory of inventory items, which the defendant avoided participating in (according to the plaintiff, notifications about the need to participate in the inventory were sent by telegram). Based on the results of an inventory carried out without the participation of the defendant in * 2008, a shortage was established in the amount of 129,158 rubles. 28 kopecks, which was recorded by the commission consisting of the director of LLC "***" S. and members of the commission T., U. and documented by the act of inventory of inventory items of the grocery department dated * 2008, the inventory sheet.
The court decided to refuse to satisfy the claims. Among the grounds on which the defendant cannot be charged with compensation for damage, the court indicated that financial liability in the full amount of damage caused can be assigned to the employee only in cases provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation or other federal laws (Article 242 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) , in particular, this is possible in the event of a shortage of valuables entrusted to him on the basis of a special written agreement or received under a one-time document (clause 2, part 1, article 243 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The List of works and categories of workers with whom contracts can be concluded for full individual financial liability (approved by Resolution of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated December 31, 2002 N 85) also includes the position of a salesperson. At the same time, according to paragraph 4 of the Review of Legislation and Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court for the fourth quarter of 2009, failure to comply with the requirements of the law on the procedure and conditions for concluding and executing an agreement on full individual financial liability may serve as a basis for releasing an employee from the obligation to compensate for damage caused through his fault in the full amount exceeding the employee’s average monthly earnings.
The court found that the written agreement of LLC "***" with X. on the performance of her labor duties as a seller of the grocery department of the store of LLC "***" and the agreement on full financial liability as with the seller of the grocery department of the store of LLC "***" was not concluded, and therefore X. cannot be obligated to compensate the employer for the damage caused in full.
Arguments of the General Director of LLC "***" S. that the agreement on full financial liability dated * 2005, concluded with X. as a seller of the perfume department of the store 000 "***", applies to the entire period of work with the material assets of the enterprise entrusted to X., including food products, since there was a transfer of X. to another department, the court declared insolvent. In particular, it is indicated that there was a transfer from one department to another, and not a transfer. The plaintiff was hired as a salesperson in the perfume department. Subsequently, despite the fact that she was not familiar with the transfer order, she was actually allowed by the employer to work as a salesperson in the food products department. At the same time, attention is drawn to the fact that since * 2007, Kh.’s main place of work has been the grocery department of the LLC “***” store.
Since an agreement on full financial liability with X. as a seller of the grocery department of the store 000 "***" was not concluded, the agreement on full financial liability concluded with her as a seller of the perfume department cannot serve as a basis for engaging her as an employee, a seller of the grocery department store LLC "***", to full financial liability, therefore X. cannot be assigned the obligation to compensate for material damage caused to the employer. Moreover, an inventory of inventory items in the grocery department of the LLC "***" store was not carried out when X. was transferred from the perfume department to the grocery department; material assets - food products - were not entrusted to X. for reporting. No evidence to the contrary was presented to the court. From the case materials it follows that the inventory was carried out * 2009, a week before X. was transferred from the perfume department to the grocery department, without the participation of X. Evidence that in the period from * 2008 until the transfer of X. to the grocery department the store was closed, not represented. On the contrary, based on the explanations of witnesses K., T., it was established that the store was open during this period.
Regarding the inventory carried out in * 2008, the court pointed to a violation of the procedure established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the Guidelines for the inventory of property and financial obligations, approved by Order of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated June 13, 1995 N 49, and therefore its results cannot be accepted into account.
Having examined the case materials and heard the explanations of the parties, the court came to the conclusion that the employer LLC "***" improperly fulfilled the obligation to provide appropriate conditions for storing accountable property, which, taking into account the provisions of Art. 239 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, excludes the financial liability of the employee.

An analysis of the above court decisions allows us to conclude that an employer who violates labor laws and attracts workers to work without concluding an employment contract can use the provisions of Art. 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for avoiding responsibility. This is facilitated not only by the small number of rules governing this institution of law, but also by the lack of unity in their interpretation by the court. An increase in the number of legal norms governing this issue can only lead to new disagreements. The most acceptable solution to this problem is to equate citizens working without an employment contract with those with whom an employment contract was concluded. Of course, following this, it will be necessary to resolve a number of issues regarding the provision of social guarantees provided for by law to employees. But the main goal is to achieve orderliness in the application of labor law in relation to workers with whom an employment contract was concluded and those who were actually allowed to work.