The conclusion of labor contracts with a limited duration is one of the ways to save energy and money when parting with employees. If you comply with all the conditions for concluding such a contract, the warning and calculation period, then challenge the dismissal upon expiration employment contract almost impossible. Many employers use this circumstance as a lever of intangible influence on temporary workers. However, a specialist hired for a certain period should be aware of some norms of labor legislation that allow him to adequately respond to the abuses of his superiors.

What is the term of an employment contract and how to understand that it has expired?

Important! It should be borne in mind that:

• Each case is unique and individual.
• Careful study of the issue does not always guarantee a positive outcome of the case. It depends on many factors.

To get the most detailed advice on your issue, you just need to choose any of the proposed options:

On the basis of the period of validity, the Labor Code () divides employment contracts into only two categories: fixed-term or indefinite. The difference between one and the other is that the first will necessarily indicate the time period of its action. If such a clause is omitted from the work agreement, it will be considered signed on set time, with all the ensuing labor guarantees.

Whatever one may say, but employees accepted on the basis of an unlimited period of performance of their functions, formally, are better protected than "conscripts". In order to prevent the employer from being carried away by such indulgences, the legislator has established a number of restrictions:

• the maximum duration of such a contract is 5 years (this limit is established by Article 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but does not exclude the possibility of using special laws of the Russian Federation);
• signing an agreement limited to a certain period is possible only for those works that do not imply cooperation on permanent basis, Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
• you can argue about the legality of the offer of a fixed-term contract in court, in this situation it becomes indefinite;
• the contract will automatically become permanent if the notice period for its termination is missed, Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

There is a division within the very concept of futures contracts. Depending on the conditions under which a temporary contract is concluded, the date of its expiration and the warning period will be determined, Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation:

Regardless of whether the employee himself remembers when his contract expires, management is obliged to duplicate this information. Moreover, a verbal reminder will not be enough, for the purposes of dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract, it is provided written notice, not a statutory form, but a common pattern.

Dismissal procedure

Any dismissal that occurs without the immediate desire of the employee is a potentially dangerous operation. One procedural error or inaccuracy can lead to negative financial consequences for the company and administrative surprises for the manager personally. There is only one way out of this situation: to discard emotions and haste in order to carry out the dismissal after the expiration of the employment contract in full accordance with Labor Code and, in particular, with article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Being late with a warning or missing the date of dismissal transfers the employee to the category of those hired for an indefinite period, Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Dismissal notice

There are not many grounds in labor law for concluding fixed-term employment contracts. Rather, it contains an implied warning that an employer should use caution when using this form and accept employees without time limits. At the same time, this norm can easily be bypassed by a small business entity and individual entrepreneurs with a small number of employees. For them, the possibility of urgent hiring by agreement of the parties is provided, Art. 59 TK.

If, for any of the reasons of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, fixed-term contracts are nevertheless concluded at the enterprise, then personnel officers must maintain a kind of calendar for themselves labor relations. For the employer, this is especially important, since skipping the warning date automatically changes the status temporary worker to permanent.

Based on the requirements of Article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, three days before the end of the contract, the employee is notified in writing of the dismissal. There is no unified form of this document, but notices of reduction can be taken as a sample if several changes are made to it:

• the notice is printed on letterhead or with all the details of the company;
• the document must be nominal (the full name of the specialist and his position must be entered);
• it is necessary to focus on the exact date of dismissal;
• it is desirable to clarify the number of the employment contract and the clause according to which it is considered urgent;
• inform the employee that the dismissal upon the expiration of the employment contract will be carried out in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation;
• the date of compilation and actual delivery of the paper may not coincide, but must fit within the time limits allotted by law.

The requirement to meet the deadlines does not apply to situations where a specialist takes the place of a temporary absent person. Since the law does not oblige, for example, a maternity worker to notify in advance of her intention to return to duty, termination of a fixed-term contract can occur in one day.

The document is handed over to the employee personally, under the signature. If for some reason he does not want to be acquainted with the paper, then the employer can involve witnesses in this process. Having read the notification aloud to the employee in their presence, the director has the right to draw up an act of refusal to familiarize and calmly deal with current issues.

Dismissal order

On the day of the scheduled settlement, the enterprise must issue an order to dismiss the temporarily invited specialist due to the expiration of the employment contract. It is important to understand that it is necessary not only to inform him in time about the upcoming expiration of the terms of cooperation, but also not to be late in signing the order of the management. One day of delay will lead to the fact that the dismissal under paragraph 2 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation will be declared illegal.

A sample order to terminate an employment contract can be found in the Decree of the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation on unified forms of 01/05/2004. The most convenient is the T-8 form, which allows you to disclose all the important circumstances and details of the dismissal of each member of the team.

The columns of the document indicate: terms labor contract, the reason for dismissal and a link to the article of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Be sure to refer to the clause of the contract and mention how and when the employee was notified of the end of his period of work. As in all other cases of parting with an employee, the order must be signed by the person being dismissed or painted by witnesses of his refusal.

It is also possible to issue a dismissal order in advance, indicating the actual date of termination of the contract, then it can also serve as evidence of timely notification.

Making an entry in the work book

The process of correctly filling out the work book of an employee-conscript is not much different from any other case. An exact copy of the wording taken from the dismissal order is also transferred to it. Indicate in the section on work and the norm of the Labor Code: clause 2 of Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The book is not issued if the employee worked on an external part-time basis, and his documents are kept by the main employer. In this situation, the maximum that the outgoing person may require is to receive a copy of the order and a certificate of the period of work and position held. If desired, his main employer can make entries about another place of work, based on the issued papers.

Even if the need to terminate cooperation arose unexpectedly and the employer is forced to prepare documents for dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract, as they say, “from the wheels”, the order, labor and money must be issued on the day of the last visit to work, art. 140 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Retirement cash payments

No matter how long labor communication under a fixed-term contract lasts, an employee can count on all the payments listed in the code:

• the rest of the salary
• compensation for all earnings and unused vacation(even if no more than one day of rest has accumulated during employment);
• award for conscientious work and compensation for work on holidays and overtime;
• severance pay or other bonuses guaranteed by the collective agreement or individual agreement.

Due to the fact that temporary cooperation can be quite short, it is necessary to separately study the issue of determining prescribed amount days of vacation before filing a dismissal upon expiration of the employment contract. According to the rule of Article 291 of the Labor Code, if the employment relationship lasted two or less months, then for each month the employee is entitled to two days of rest. In other cases, the formula is used:

The prescribed number of days (at least 28) / 12 * the number of full months worked.

The latter indicator is difficult to determine if the employee was hired or fired not from the beginning of the calendar month. In this case, the rounding rule is as follows: a “tail” of more than 15 days is taken for the full period, and less is not included in the calculation.

Dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract is a kind of mutual agreement of the parties, because the parties agree on the date and conditions of parting in advance and voluntarily. In order for the process to go peacefully and without unpleasant associations, the employer must not forget that the cooperation is temporary and remind the employee of this in advance.

Bar lawyer legal protection. Specializes in handling cases related to labor disputes. Defense in court, preparation of claims and other normative documents to regulatory authorities.

The grounds for termination of an employment contract are:

1) agreement of the parties (Article 78 of this Code);

2) expiration of the term of the employment contract (Article 79 of this Code), except for cases where the employment relationship actually continues and none of the parties has demanded their termination;

3) termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employee (Article 80 of this Code);

4) termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer (Articles 71 and 81 of this Code);

5) transfer of an employee at his request or with his consent to work for another employer or transfer to elective work (position);

6) refusal of the employee to continue work in connection with a change in the owner of the property of the organization, with a change in the jurisdiction (subordination) of the organization or its reorganization (Article 75 of this Code);

7) refusal of the employee to continue work in connection with a change in the terms of the employment contract determined by the parties (part four of Article 74 of this Code);

8) the employee's refusal to transfer to another job, which is necessary for him in accordance with a medical certificate issued in the manner prescribed by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts Russian Federation, or the absence of an appropriate job for the employer (parts three and four of Article 73 of this Code);

9) the employee's refusal to be transferred to work in another locality together with the employer (part one of Article 72.1 of this Code);

10) circumstances beyond the control of the parties (Article 83 of this Code);

11) violation of the rules for concluding an employment contract established by this Code or other federal law, if this violation excludes the possibility of continuing work (Article 84 of this Code).

An employment contract may also be terminated on other grounds provided for by this Code and other federal laws.

Part three is no longer valid. - Federal Law of June 30, 2006 N 90-FZ.

Article 78. Termination of an employment contract by agreement of the parties

The employment contract may be terminated at any time by agreement of the parties to the employment contract.

Article 79. Termination of a fixed-term employment contract

A fixed-term employment contract is terminated upon expiration of its validity period. The employee must be notified in writing of the termination of an employment contract due to its expiration at least three calendar days before dismissal, except for cases when the term of the fixed-term employment contract concluded for the period of performance of the duties of the absent employee expires.

(part one as amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of 30.06.2006)

An employment contract concluded for the duration of a certain work is terminated upon completion of this work.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

An employment contract concluded for the duration of the performance of the duties of an absent employee is terminated when this employee returns to work.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

Employment contract concluded for the performance seasonal work during a certain period (season), terminates at the end of this period (season).

Article 80

The employee has the right to terminate the employment contract by notifying the employer in writing no later than two weeks in advance, unless another period is established by this Code or other federal law. The specified period begins the next day after the employer receives the employee's application for dismissal.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

By agreement between the employee and the employer, the employment contract may be terminated even before the expiration of the notice of dismissal.

In cases where the employee's application for dismissal on his initiative (on own will) due to the impossibility of continuing his work (enrollment in educational institution, retirement and other cases), as well as in cases of established violation by the employer of labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, local regulations, terms of a collective agreement, agreement or employment contract, the employer is obliged to terminate the employment contract within the period specified in the employee's statement.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

Prior to the expiration of the notice of dismissal, the employee has the right to withdraw his application at any time. Dismissal in this case is not carried out if another employee is not invited in his place in writing, who, in accordance with this Code and other federal laws, cannot be refused to conclude an employment contract.

Upon the expiry of the termination notice period, the employee has the right to stop work. On the last day of work, the employer is obliged to give the employee a work book, other documents related to work, at the written request of the employee, and make the final settlement with him.

If the employment contract has not been terminated after the expiration of the termination notice and the employee does not insist on dismissal, then the employment contract continues.

Article 81. Termination of an employment contract at the initiative of the employer

The employment contract may be terminated by the employer in the following cases:

1) liquidation of the organization or termination of activity by an individual entrepreneur;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

2) reduction in the number or staff of employees of the organization, individual entrepreneur;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

3) non-compliance of the employee with the position held or work performed due to insufficient qualifications, confirmed by the results of certification;

(Clause 3 as amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

4) change of the owner of the property of the organization (in relation to the head of the organization, his deputies and the chief accountant);

5) repeated non-performance by an employee without good reasons job duties if he has a disciplinary sanction;

6) a single gross violation of labor duties by an employee:

a) absenteeism, that is, absence from the workplace without good reason throughout the working day (shift), regardless of its (her) duration, as well as in case of absence from the workplace without good reason for more than four hours in a row during the working day ( shifts);

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

b) the appearance of an employee at work (at his workplace or on the territory of the organization - the employer or the facility where, on behalf of the employer, the employee must perform a labor function) in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or other toxic intoxication;

(clause "b" as amended by the Federal Law of 30.06.2006 N 90-FZ)

c) disclosure of legally protected secrets (state, commercial, official and other), which became known to the employee in connection with the performance of his labor duties, including the disclosure of personal data of another employee;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

d) committing at the place of work theft (including small) of another's property, embezzlement, its deliberate destruction or damage, established by a court verdict that has entered into legal force or a decision of a judge, body, official authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

e) a violation by an employee of labor protection requirements established by the labor protection commission or the labor protection commissioner, if this violation entailed serious consequences (accident at work, accident, catastrophe) or knowingly created a real threat of such consequences;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

7) the commission of guilty actions by an employee directly serving monetary or commodity values, if these actions give rise to a loss of confidence in him on the part of the employer;

8) commission by an employee performing educational functions of an immoral offense incompatible with the continuation of this work;

9) making an unreasonable decision by the head of the organization (branch, representative office), his deputies and the chief accountant, which entailed a violation of the safety of property, its unlawful use or other damage to the property of the organization;

10) a single gross violation by the head of the organization (branch, representative office), his deputies of their labor duties;

11) submission by the employee to the employer of false documents when concluding an employment contract;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

12) is no longer valid. - Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006;

13) provided for by the employment contract with the head of the organization, members of the collegial executive body of the organization;

14) in other cases established by this Code and other federal laws.

The procedure for conducting attestation (clause 3 of part one of this article) is established labor law and other regulatory legal acts containing labor law norms, local regulations adopted taking into account the opinion of the representative body of workers.

Dismissal on the grounds provided for in paragraph 2 or 3 of part one of this article is allowed if it is impossible to transfer the employee with his written consent to another job available to the employer (as vacant position or a job corresponding to the qualifications of the employee, and a vacant lower position or lower-paid work) that the employee can perform, taking into account his state of health. At the same time, the employer is obliged to offer the employee all the vacancies that meet the specified requirements that he has in the given area. The employer is obliged to offer vacancies in other localities, if it is provided collective agreement agreements, employment contracts.

In the event of termination of the activities of a branch, representative office or other separate structural subdivision of an organization located in another locality, termination of employment contracts with employees of this subdivision is carried out according to the rules provided for in cases of liquidation of the organization.

(Part four as amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

Dismissal of an employee on the grounds provided for in paragraph 7 or 8 of part one of this article, in cases where the guilty actions that give grounds for the loss of confidence, or, accordingly, an immoral offense are committed by the employee outside the place of work or at the place of work, but not in connection with the performance of labor duties, is not allowed later than one year from the date of discovery of the misconduct by the employer.

(Part five was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

It is not allowed to dismiss an employee at the initiative of the employer (with the exception of the case of liquidation of the organization or termination of activity by an individual entrepreneur) during the period of his temporary disability and during the period of vacation.

(Part six was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

Article 82

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

The provision of part one of Article 82 of this Code, according to which, when making a decision to reduce the number or staff of employees of the organization and the possible termination of employment contracts with employees in accordance with paragraph 2 of part one of Article 81 of this Code, the employer is obliged to notify the elected body of the primary trade union organization not later than two months before the start of the relevant events, in the system of the current legal regulation means that the employer, when making the appropriate decision, is obliged to inform the elected body of the primary trade union organization about this in writing no later than two months before the termination of employment contracts with employees (determination of the Constitutional Court dated 15.01.2008 N 201-O-P).

When deciding to reduce the number or staff of employees of an organization, an individual entrepreneur and the possible termination of employment contracts with employees in accordance with paragraph 2 of part one of Article 81 of this Code, the employer is obliged to notify the elected body of the primary trade union organization in writing no later than two months in advance. before the start of the relevant events, and if the decision to reduce the number or staff of employees may lead to mass layoffs of employees - no later than three months before the start of the relevant events. Criteria for mass layoffs are determined in industry and (or) territorial agreements.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

The dismissal of employees who are members of a trade union on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 2, 3 or 5 of the first part of Article 81 of this Code is carried out taking into account the reasoned opinion of the elected body of the primary trade union organization in accordance with Article 373 of this Code.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

When conducting certification, which may serve as a basis for the dismissal of employees in accordance with clause 3 of part one of Article 81 of this Code, to the composition of the certification commission in without fail a representative of the elected body of the corresponding primary trade union organization is included.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

The collective agreement may establish a different procedure for the mandatory participation of the elected body of the primary trade union organization in the consideration of issues related to the termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer.

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

Article 83. Termination of an employment contract due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties

An employment contract is subject to termination due to the following circumstances beyond the control of the parties:

1) conscription of an employee for military service or sending him to an alternative civilian service that replaces it;

2) reinstatement at work of an employee who previously performed this work, by decision state inspection labor or court;

3) non-election to office;

4) condemnation of the employee to a punishment that precludes the continuation of the previous work, in accordance with a court verdict that has entered into force;

5) recognition of the employee as completely incapable of labor activity in accordance with a medical report issued in accordance with the procedure established by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

6) death of an employee or employer - individual, as well as recognition by the court of an employee or employer - an individual as dead or missing;

7) the onset of emergency circumstances that prevent the continuation of labor relations (military operations, a catastrophe, a natural disaster, a major accident, an epidemic and other emergency circumstances), if this circumstance is recognized by a decision of the Government of the Russian Federation or a body state power the corresponding subject of the Russian Federation;

8) disqualification or other administrative punishment, excluding the possibility of the employee fulfilling obligations under an employment contract;

(Clause 8 was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

9) expiration, suspension of validity for a period of more than two months or deprivation of an employee of a special right (license, right to manage vehicle, the right to bear arms, other special rights) in accordance with federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, if this entails the impossibility for the employee to fulfill his obligations under an employment contract;

(Clause 9 was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

10) termination of access to state secrets, if the work performed requires such access;

(Clause 10 was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

11) cancellation of a court decision or cancellation (recognition as illegal) of a decision of the state labor inspectorate on the reinstatement of an employee at work;

(Clause 11 was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

12) bringing the total number of employees who are foreign citizens or stateless persons into line with the allowable share of such employees established by the Government of the Russian Federation for employers engaged in certain types of work in the Russian Federation economic activity;

(Clause 12 was introduced by Federal Law No. 271-FZ of December 30, 2006)

13) the emergence of restrictions established by this Code, other federal law and excluding the possibility of the employee fulfilling obligations under an employment contract on engaging in certain types of labor activity.

(Clause 13 was introduced by Federal Law No. 387-FZ of December 23, 2010)

Termination of an employment contract on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10 or 13 of part one of this article is allowed if it is impossible to transfer the employee with his written consent to another job available to the employer (as a vacant position or a job corresponding to the qualifications of the employee, so and a vacant subordinate position or lower-paid job) that the employee can perform, taking into account his state of health. At the same time, the employer is obliged to offer the employee all the vacancies that meet the specified requirements that he has in the given area. The employer is obliged to offer vacancies in other localities, if it is provided for by the collective agreement, agreements, labor contract.

(as amended by Federal Laws No. 90-FZ of 30.06.2006, No. 387-FZ of 23.12.2010)

An employment contract on the grounds provided for by clause 12 of part one of this article shall terminate no later than the expiration of the period established by the Government of the Russian Federation for bringing by employers engaged in certain types of economic activity in the territory of the Russian Federation the total number of employees who are foreign citizens or stateless persons into compliance with the allowable proportion of such workers.

(Part three was introduced by Federal Law No. 271-FZ of December 30, 2006)

Article 84

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

An employment contract is terminated as a result of a violation of the rules for its conclusion established by this Code or other federal law (clause 11 of part one of Article 77 of this Code), if a violation of these rules excludes the possibility of continuing work, in the following cases:

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

the conclusion of an employment contract in violation of a court verdict depriving a particular person of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities;

conclusion of an employment contract for the performance of work that is contraindicated for this employee for health reasons in accordance with a medical certificate issued in the manner prescribed by federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation;

(As amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ dated June 30, 2006)

the absence of an appropriate document on education, if the performance of work requires special knowledge in accordance with a federal law or other regulatory legal act;

conclusion of an employment contract in violation of the decision of a judge, body, official authorized to consider cases of administrative offenses, on disqualification or other administrative punishment that precludes the employee from fulfilling obligations under an employment contract, or the conclusion of an employment contract in violation of the restrictions, prohibitions and requirements established by federal laws concerning the involvement in labor activity of citizens dismissed from the state or municipal service;

(as amended by Federal Laws No. 90-FZ of 30.06.2006, No. 280-FZ of 25.12.2008)

the conclusion of an employment contract in violation of the restrictions on engaging in certain types of labor activity established by this Code, other federal law;

(paragraph introduced by Federal Law No. 387-FZ of December 23, 2010)

in other cases stipulated by federal laws.

(the paragraph was introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

In the cases provided for by part one of this article, the employment contract is terminated if it is impossible to transfer the employee with his written consent to another job available to the employer (both a vacant position or a job corresponding to the employee’s qualifications, and a vacant lower position or lower-paid job) that the employee can perform according to his state of health. At the same time, the employer is obliged to offer the employee all the vacancies that meet the specified requirements that he has in the given area. The employer is obliged to offer vacancies in other localities, if it is provided for by the collective agreement, agreements, labor contract.

(Part two as amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

If the violation of the rules for concluding an employment contract established by this Code or other federal law is not due to the fault of the employee, then the employee is paid a severance pay in the amount of the average monthly salary. If the violation of these rules is due to the fault of the employee, then the employer is not obliged to offer him another job, and the employee is not paid severance pay.

(Part three as amended by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

Article 84.1. General procedure for processing the termination of an employment contract

(Introduced by Federal Law No. 90-FZ of June 30, 2006)

The termination of the employment contract is formalized by the order (instruction) of the employer.

The employee must be familiarized with the order (instruction) of the employer to terminate the employment contract against signature. At the request of the employee, the employer is obliged to issue him a duly certified copy of the said order (instruction). In the event that the order (instruction) to terminate the employment contract cannot be brought to the attention of the employee or the employee refuses to get acquainted with it against signature, an appropriate entry is made on the order (instruction).

The day of termination of the employment contract in all cases is the last day of the employee's work, except for cases when the employee did not actually work, but, in accordance with this Code or other federal law, he retained his place of work (position).

On the day of termination of the employment contract, the employer is obliged to issue a work book to the employee and make settlements with him in accordance with Article 140 of this Code. At the written request of the employee, the employer is also obliged to provide him with duly certified copies of documents related to work.

An entry in the work book on the basis and reason for the termination of the employment contract must be made in strict accordance with the wording of this Code or another federal law and with reference to the relevant article, part of the article, paragraph of the article of this Code or other federal law.

In the event that on the day of termination of the employment contract it is impossible to issue a work book to an employee due to his absence or refusal to receive it, the employer is obliged to send a notification to the employee about the need to appear for a work book or agree to send it by mail. From the date of sending the said notification, the employer is released from liability for the delay in issuing a work book. The employer is also not responsible for the delay in issuing a work book in cases of mismatch last day work with the day of registration of the termination of labor relations upon dismissal of an employee on the grounds provided for in subparagraph "a" of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 81 or paragraph 4 of part one of Article 83 of this Code, and upon dismissal of a woman whose employment contract was extended until the end of pregnancy in accordance with part two of Article 261 of this Code. At the written request of an employee who has not received a work book after dismissal, the employer is obliged to issue it no later than three working days from the date of the employee's request.

Updated on 08.12.2017 13:22

5. . Disputes about dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract

1. Legality of terminating a fixed-term employment contract

The essence of disputes

Labor legislation provides for a list of specific cases when the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract is due to the nature of the work to be done or the conditions for its implementation (Article 58, part 1 of Article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Without taking into account these circumstances, the conclusion of an employment contract for a certain period is allowed by agreement of the parties in the cases provided for in Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. A fixed-term employment contract must indicate the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for concluding an agreement for a certain period (paragraph 4, part 2, article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
The basis for termination of an employment contract concluded for a certain period is the expiration of its validity depending on the date or event indicated in it, except in cases where the employment relationship actually continues and none of the parties has demanded their termination (paragraph 2 of part 1 article 77, article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
In case of dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, labor relations are terminated due to the expiration of the employment contract, and not at the initiative of the employer. Upon dismissal for ground the guarantees provided for by labor legislation for employees dismissed at the initiative of the employer are not provided. Such guarantees include a ban on dismissal during a period of temporary disability and being on vacation (part 6 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), a ban on the dismissal of women with children under the age of three (part 4 of article 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), and other categories of workers. However, part 2 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and clause 27 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 01.28.2014 N 1 provides for the obligation of the employer, at the request of the employee, to extend the fixed-term employment contract until the end of pregnancy (until the end of maternity leave if the pregnancy ended with the birth of a child).
An analysis of judicial practice shows that if a fixed-term employment contract was not concluded in writing or was concluded in the absence of legal grounds, then dismissal due to the expiration of its validity period may be considered unlawful.
If the dispute was caused by dismissal before the expiration of the period specified in the contract or during the period of temporary disability or vacation of the employee, then its resolution will depend on whether the date or event occurred at the time of dismissal of the employee, with which the termination of the employment contract is associated.
If the dismissal caused a dispute in which the employee refers to the continuation of the employment relationship after the expiration of the employment contract, then its resolution will depend on whether the employer has evidence of notification of the employee about the upcoming dismissal and the actual termination of the employment relationship with him.

See also:

1.1. Is dismissal legal due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if there were no grounds for concluding it for a certain period?

The courts proceed from the following. A fixed-term employment contract is concluded when an employment relationship cannot be established for an indefinite period, taking into account the nature of the work to be performed or the conditions for its performance. These cases are provided for in Part 1 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. These circumstances may not be taken into account in the established Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in cases, but only if the parties have agreed on the urgent nature of the contract.
If the court, when resolving a dispute about the legality of concluding a fixed-term employment contract, comes to the conclusion that there were no grounds for concluding it or that it was concluded by the employee involuntarily, then the contract may be recognized by the court as concluded for an indefinite period (part 5 of article 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, clause 13 Decrees of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2).
At the same time, an analysis of court decisions of the appellate and cassation instances shows that lower courts sometimes make decisions in favor of the employer, based on an incorrect interpretation of substantive law.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Determination of the Moscow City Court of December 18, 2013 N 4g / 8-12759
Worker Requirements:
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired to the position of director of a separate structural unit under a fixed-term employment contract. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The employee's requirements are met. The decision of the court of first instance and the appellate ruling were left unchanged.
In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract may be concluded by agreement of the parties with the heads, deputy heads and chief accountants of organizations, regardless of their organizational and legal forms and forms of ownership.
The employer had no grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract with the head separate subdivision. Since the specified agreement was concluded in violation of the law, its termination due to the expiration of the term is illegal.

Appeal ruling of the Irkutsk Regional Court dated June 5, 2013 in case N 33-4481/13
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, the employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract for the period of validity of state contracts concluded by the employer. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
Grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract with an employee in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation were absent. The employer did not provide evidence that a fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the employee in connection with the performance of work related to the obviously temporary expansion of the volume of services provided, as well as that the organization was created to carry out its activities for a known period.
The employer's reference to the fact that the fixed-term nature of the employment contract is due to the conclusion of state contracts is untenable, since the provision of the services provided for by the contracts does not go beyond the normal activities of the organization.

Appeal ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated November 28, 2012 in case N 33-10385/2012
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract. The employer explained the urgency of the contract by the fact that the employee did not have the special profile education necessary to fill the position. The fact that the contract will be concluded for a certain period, she was notified at the time of its signing and agreed with the terms of the employment contract.
Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
The employer did not provide evidence that the circumstances of concluding a fixed-term contract with the employee corresponded to those provided for in Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Taking into account the nature of the work and the conditions for its performance, the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with an employee is not legal. The will to conclude a fixed-term employment contract of an employee who is not included in the list of persons specified in Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, is not a basis for concluding an employment contract for a fixed period.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia dated March 6, 2012 in case N 33a-204/2012 (N 33-804/2012)
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was appointed to the position of branch manager, while an employment contract was concluded for an indefinite period. Subsequently, an additional agreement was signed between the parties, which established the duration of the employment contract. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
The conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with the head of the branch does not comply with the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since, according to Art. 55 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a branch is not legal entity. The nature of the forthcoming work, the conditions for its implementation do not allow the establishment of labor relations for a certain period in the cases provided for in Part 1 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there are no grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract with the employee.

Determination of the Leningrad Regional Court dated February 28, 2012 N 33-928 / 12
Worker Requirements:
Circumstances of the case: An employment contract was concluded with the employee for the performance of seasonal work (paragraph 3, part 1, article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Upon the expiration of his term, she was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The employer's activity is permanent, year-round. The position of the employee is full-time, not included in the List of seasonal jobs established by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 04/06/1999 N 382.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
from an employment contract and job description it does not follow that the female worker was hired to perform any temporary or seasonal work. There are no grounds to attribute her to the number of persons with whom a fixed-term employment contract can be concluded by agreement of the parties.
In itself, the consent of the employee to conclude a fixed-term employment contract with her without referring her to the list of persons specified in Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, is not the basis for its conclusion.

Cassation ruling of the Khanty-Mansiysk court autonomous region- Ugra dated 06.12.2011 in case No. 33-5544/2011
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract in connection with the temporary expansion of production and an increase in the volume of work. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The employee's requirements are met. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
According to par. 6 h. 1 tbsp. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract is concluded for work that goes beyond the normal activities of the employer, as well as work related to a deliberately temporary (up to one year) expansion of production or the volume of services provided. The employer did not provide evidence of a deliberately temporary expansion of production or an increase in the volume of services provided. The employee performed work that did not go beyond the normal activities of the employer. In this case, there were no grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract.

Cassation ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ingushetia dated 26.08.2010
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired to the position of chief engineer under a fixed-term employment contract. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The employee's requirements are met. The decision of the court was upheld.
The work performed is permanent, the fixed-term employment contract was concluded by the employee involuntarily. The position of chief engineer does not apply to the positions listed in Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, therefore, the employer did not have the right to conclude a fixed-term employment contract with him.

1.2. Is it legal to dismiss an employee due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) while she is on maternity leave or parental leave?

Exists arbitrage practice and the author's article, according to which dismissal in this situation is legitimate.
Proponents of this position proceed from the following. By virtue of h. 4 Article. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation prohibits the dismissal at the initiative of the employer of women with children under the age of three. The expiration of the term of the employment contract is an independent basis for the termination of the employment contract. In this regard, when dismissing an employee on this basis, the employer is not obliged to take into account additional guarantees established by labor legislation for certain cases of dismissal of employees at the initiative of the employer (for example, in accordance with Article 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, guarantees for pregnant women, as well as women who having children). The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the employer's obligation to extend a fixed-term employment contract with a person who has children under the age of three until the child reaches the specified age.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Saratov Regional Court dated August 15, 2013 in case No. 33-5193
Worker Requirements:
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract to replace a temporarily absent employee. At the time of the departure of the main employee, she was on maternity leave after the birth of the child. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
Since dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract does not apply to the grounds for dismissal at the initiative of the employer, the employee is not subject to the guarantees provided for in Part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the employer had the right to terminate the employment contract with the employee in connection with the expiration of its validity.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated July 25, 2013 in case N 33-8643/2013
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case:
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Termination of an employment contract due to its expiration does not apply to cases of termination of an employment contract at the initiative of the employer, therefore, the employee is not subject to the ban on dismissal during her vacation.

Appeal ruling of the Irkutsk Regional Court dated May 29, 2012 in case No. 33-4458/12
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employment contract expired while the employee was on parental leave. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
At the time of the expiration of the employment contract, the employee was not pregnant, but was on parental leave. As a result, the guarantees provided for in Parts 2 and 3 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract does not apply to the grounds for dismissal at the initiative of the employer, therefore, the employee is also not subject to the ban on dismissal established by Part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Determination of the Moscow Regional Court dated March 13, 2012 in case No. 33-4135
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract. Its validity period expired while the employee was on maternity leave and was extended until the end of the leave. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
In accordance with Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, termination of an employment contract at the initiative of an employer with pregnant women is not allowed, except in cases of liquidation of an organization or termination of activity by an individual entrepreneur.
The employee was fired not at the initiative of the employer, but in connection with the expiration of the employment contract, therefore, the guarantees provided for in Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Determination of the Moscow City Court of May 12, 2012 N 4g / 9-3263 / 2012
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee has a fixed-term employment contract. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation during parental leave.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is an independent basis for the termination of an employment contract. Employees dismissed by agreement of the parties are not covered by the guarantees provided upon dismissal at the initiative of the employer.

Determination of the Moscow City Court dated February 20, 2012 in case N 33-5429
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, conclude an employment contract for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The employment contract expired while the employee was on parental leave. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
According to part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, termination of an employment contract with women with children under the age of three, single mothers at the initiative of the employer is not allowed.
Dismissal after the expiration of the employment contract is an independent basis for termination of the employment contract and does not apply to termination of the contract at the initiative of the employer. Upon dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation of a woman with a child under the age of three, part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is not applicable.

Appeal ruling of the Omsk Regional Court dated February 15, 2012 N 33-1187/2012
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employment contract expired while the employee was on parental leave. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract. The reason for the dismissal was the exit of the main employee from parental leave.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Termination of an employment contract due to the expiration of its term is not a termination of an employment contract at the initiative of the employer, therefore, in this case, the guarantees provided for in Part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for cases of termination of an employment contract cannot be extended to an employee.
Article 256 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides that for the period of leave to care for a child, an employee retains a place of work (position), and is primarily aimed at additional protection of the rights of the main employee. He retains his place of work, and he has the right to start working in his former position at any time at his own discretion. This right does not depend on whether his position is occupied by an employee hired during his absence, and whether a temporary worker belongs to the category of persons entitled to any additional guarantees upon termination of the employment contract.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi dated 09.02.2012 N 33-557/2012
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, recognize the dismissal order as illegal, a fixed-term employment contract is indefinite.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired for the period of absence of the main employee under a fixed-term employment contract. Its validity expired while the employee was on maternity leave. She was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
An employment contract concluded for the duration of the performance of the duties of an absent employee is terminated when this employee returns to work. In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is not allowed to terminate an employment contract with women with children under the age of three at the initiative of the employer. The employment contract with the employee was terminated due to the expiration of the term, and not at the initiative of the employer.

Determination of the Moscow Regional Court dated March 10, 2011 in case No. 33-4776
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, make changes to the work book.
Circumstances of the case: An employment contract was concluded with an employee (foreign citizen) for the period of validity of the work permit issued to her in the territory of the Russian Federation. The employment contract expired while she was on parental leave. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Termination of an employment contract due to the expiration of the term is not a termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer, therefore, in this case, the guarantees provided for in Part 4 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for cases of termination of an employment contract cannot be extended to an employee.
At the same time, these provisions of the legislation cannot be considered as reducing the guarantees of women working under fixed-term employment contracts, in comparison with other categories of citizens, since the woman knew about the nature of the contract concluded with her and agreed to the proposed conditions.

Article: Dismissal of employees with children under the age of three (Kalinina A.) ("Labor Law", 2012, N 2)
Conclusion and justification of the author: If the employee is on parental leave at the time the main employee enters work, the guarantees provided for in Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, they do not apply to it.
The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not establish the employer's obligation to extend a fixed-term employment contract with persons with children under the age of three until the child reaches the specified age. In contrast to this, part 2 of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the extension of a fixed-term employment contract until the end of pregnancy.

Similar findings include:
Review of the cassation and supervisory practice of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court for 2010
Determination of the Moscow Regional Court of 08.07.2010 N 33-13274
Determination of the Moscow City Court dated June 17, 2010 in case No. 33-15129
Cassation ruling of the Saratov Regional Court dated May 21, 2009

1.3. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) during the period of temporary disability of the employee?

There is judicial practice and articles by the authors, according to which dismissal in this situation is lawful.
This conclusion is based on the fact that upon dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, labor relations are terminated due to the expiration of the employment contract, and not at the initiative of the employer, therefore, the guarantees provided for in Part 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated December 24, 2013 N 33-15642/2013
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal order as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). At the time of her dismissal, she was temporarily unable to work.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The prohibition on dismissal during the period of temporary disability of the employee, established by Part 6 of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, applies only to cases of termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer. Dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract does not apply to such cases.

Appeal ruling of the Volgograd Regional Court dated September 25, 2013 in case N 33-10571/2013
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). At the time of his dismissal, he was temporarily unable to work.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
The ban on dismissal of an employee during a period of temporary disability applies only to cases of termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer (part 6 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract does not apply to such cases.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan dated December 6, 2012 in case N 33-13965/2012
Worker Requirements: recognize the order to terminate the employment contract as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was fired during a period of temporary disability. The reason was the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The argument of the employee that the employer did not have the right to terminate the fixed-term employment contract with her during the period of her disability is untenable. The expiration of the term of the employment contract is an independent basis for its termination. Established Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the ban on dismissal of an employee during the period of his temporary disability does not apply to the termination of an employment contract under clause 2, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Appeal ruling of the Perm Regional Court dated September 17, 2012 in case N 33-7605-2012
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation during the period of temporary disability. The employer was notified of the upcoming dismissal in a timely manner.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is lawful. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The dismissal of an employee due to the expiration of the employment contract refers to the general grounds for dismissal established in Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, the provisions of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the restriction on termination of the employment contract that is valid upon dismissal at the initiative of the employer during the period of temporary disability of the employee.

Determination of the Moscow City Court of June 13, 2012 N 4g / 9-4335 / 2012
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case:
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
There were no violations of labor legislation during the dismissal of an employee.
The expiration of the term of the employment contract is an independent basis for its termination.
Dismissal on the basis under consideration is carried out not at the initiative of the employer, but in connection with the occurrence of an event provided for by law - the expiration of the employment contract.

Cassation ruling of the Kamchatka Regional Court dated March 17, 2011 in case No. 33-351/2011
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, change the date and wording of the dismissal.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed during the period of temporary disability due to the expiration of the employment contract. The employer was notified of the upcoming dismissal in a timely manner.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employee's argument about the illegality of his dismissal due to the fact that at the time of termination of the employment contract he was temporarily unable to work is untenable. The expiration of the term of the employment contract is an independent basis for the dismissal of the employee. When dismissing on this basis, the employer is not obliged to take into account additional guarantees, established by law for certain cases of dismissal at the initiative of the employer. Clause 2, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation regulates relations that arise upon the occurrence of a certain event - the expiration of the established term of the employment contract. This circumstance is not connected with the initiative of the employer and occurs regardless of his will.

Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed due to the expiration of the employment contract under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation during the period of temporary disability.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The provisions of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which do not allow the dismissal of an employee during the period of his temporary disability, are applied only in cases of termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer, and not in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.

Expert advice, 2012
Author's conclusion: The date of dismissal is the date of termination of the fixed-term employment contract. The expiration of the employment contract is a separate ground for dismissal, so the employer has every right to terminate the employment relationship with the sick employee on the day the employment contract ends. Otherwise, if the term of the employment contract expires, and the employer does not dismiss the employee, in accordance with Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the condition on the urgent nature of the employment contract becomes invalid and the employment contract is considered concluded for an indefinite period.

Article: What to do if the term of the employment contract expires, and the employee falls ill (Zabramnaya E.Yu.) ("The Main Book", 2011, N 19)
Conclusion and justification of the author: The organization has every right to terminate the expired employment contract with a sick employee.
The expiration of the employment contract is not the termination of the employment contract at the initiative of the employer, therefore the provisions of Art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, which do not allow the dismissal of an employee during his temporary disability, do not apply.

1.4. Is it legal to dismiss an employee who performs the duties of a position if the expiration of the employment contract is due to the appointment of another person to this position?

There is a court ruling according to which dismissal in this situation is unlawful.
The conclusion is based on the following. In accordance with Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract may be concluded, in particular, for the duration of the performance of the duties of an absent employee. Within the meaning of this norm, the main employee who has not yet been hired is not absent. There is no legal basis for concluding a fixed-term employment contract, which makes it possible to recognize the contract as concluded for an indefinite period (Article 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
At the same time, an analysis of the decision of the cassation instance shows that the lower court ruled in favor of the employer. The court proceeded from the fact that when concluding an employment contract, an agreement was reached between the parties on the validity period, which is determined by the onset of a specific event - the appointment to the position of general director in the prescribed manner. The court considered that this circumstance could not indicate that the employment contract was concluded by the parties for an indefinite period.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Determination of the Moscow City Court dated 07.06.2012 N 4g / 8-4383
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employment contract with the employee was concluded for the performance of the duties of the General Director, for a period until the appointment of the General Director in the prescribed manner. More than two years passed before the appointment of the General Director in accordance with the established procedure. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
If the employment contract does not specify the term of its validity, then the contract is considered concluded for an indefinite period. According to Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract is terminated upon the expiration of its validity period or upon the occurrence of a certain event.
Since the labor legislation does not provide for the conclusion of an employment contract for a period "until the appointment of the general director in the prescribed manner", this condition cannot be considered as a condition for a fixed-term employment contract, which may end with the onset of a certain event. In this regard, the employment contract is considered concluded for an indefinite period by virtue of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Grounds for dismissal of an employee under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation was not available.

1.5. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the contract was not concluded when hiring or the period of its validity was not indicated?

There is judicial practice according to which dismissal in this situation is unlawful.
The courts proceed from the following. The conclusion of an employment contract in writing is provided for by Part 1 of Art. 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. If the employment contract is not executed in writing, but the employee is actually admitted to the performance of duties (part 2 of article 67 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), then an employment relationship has arisen between the employee and the employer and the employment contract should be considered as concluded for an indefinite period.
When concluding a fixed-term employment contract, it must necessarily indicate the period of its validity and the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for its conclusion for a certain period (paragraph 4, part 2, article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). If an employment contract is concluded without specifying the term of its validity, then it is considered concluded for an indefinite period.
At the same time, an analysis of the decision of the appellate instance shows that the lower court ruled in favor of the employer. In the absence of a written employment contract, the court considered proven the fact of concluding a fixed-term employment contract on the basis of an employment order, with which the employee was familiarized against signature. This order indicated that it was adopted for the period of absence of the main employee.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dated February 27, 2012 in case No. 33-531-12
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: On the basis of the order, the employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract during the absence of the main employee. The employment contract was not formalized in writing. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. I got acquainted with the order two days after the dismissal.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
The indication in the employment order "temporarily" (for the period the main employee is on parental leave) does not replace the inclusion of this condition in the employment contract, the conclusion of which in writing is mandatory. The order of the employer is inherently derived from the agreement of the parties, drawn up in the form of an employment contract. According to Part 1 of Art. 68 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the content of this order must comply with the terms of the employment contract and cannot replace them. In addition, the order contains a reference to a written employment contract concluded between the parties.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan dated February 21, 2012 in case No. 33-423-12g
Worker Requirements: to reinstate.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was appointed to the position by an order in which the term of the employment contract is not defined. An entry was made in the work book about employment before the competition. The employee was dismissed due to the expiration of the employment contract under clause 2, part 1, art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The presence of an entry in the employee’s work book that she was hired “before the competition” does not indicate that she was hired under a fixed-term employment contract, since the contract does not indicate the grounds and cases provided for in Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
An employment contract that does not specify the term of its validity is considered to be concluded for an indefinite period.

Cassation ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated January 12, 2012 N 33-281/12
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The employer and the employee presented to the court various versions of the employment contract without the signature of the employee.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employer did not provide evidence of the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with the employee.
Part 2 Art. 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation prescribes to indicate in the text of a fixed-term contract not only a specific period of validity, but also the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for its conclusion. The employer did not prove that the employment relationship with the employee could not be established for an indefinite period, taking into account the nature of the work to be done or the conditions for its performance, which, by virtue of the provisions of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is a condition for concluding a fixed-term employment contract.
Not a single version of the contract was drawn up in accordance with the current legislation, but at the same time, the employee was actually allowed to work. Therefore, an employment relationship has arisen between the employer and the employee and the employment contract is considered as open-ended.

1.6. Is dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) legal if the event associated with the termination of the employment contract has not occurred?

The conclusion is based on the fact that, by virtue of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer has the right to dismiss the employee only if the event that determines the expiration date of the employment contract has occurred.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Cassation ruling of the court of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra dated 12/20/2011 in case N 33-5667 / 2011
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as unlawful.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired for the period of bankruptcy proceedings. By additional agreements to the employment contract, the parties determined the specific dates of dismissal until the completion of bankruptcy proceedings. Three days before the dismissal, the employee was not warned in writing about the termination of the employment contract due to the expiration of its validity. Before the completion of bankruptcy proceedings, she was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Subsequently, the employer canceled the dismissal order.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employer did not comply with the procedure for dismissal, provided for in Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. By virtue of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, an employment contract with an employee could be terminated upon completion of bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, three days before the dismissal, the employee was not warned in writing about the termination of the employment contract due to the expiration of its validity.
The employer's reference to the cancellation of the order to dismiss the employee is untenable, since the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not give the employer the right to change the date of dismissal of the employee, as well as to take other legally significant actions affecting the rights and interests of the employee, without his prior consent and after the employment relationship has already terminated at the initiative of the employer.

1.7. Is dismissal due to the expiration of the term of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for its conclusion for a certain period, existed, but were not specified in the contract?

The conclusion is based on the following. In accordance with par. 4 hours 2 tbsp. 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in a fixed-term employment contract must list the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for its conclusion for a certain period. However, if such circumstances actually took place, but there was no indication of them in the contract, then this cannot be a basis for recognizing a fixed-term employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated December 4, 2012 in case No. 11-29542/12
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The worker was admitted to construction organization under a fixed-term employment contract, which did not indicate the circumstances that served as the basis for its conclusion for a certain period. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The absence in a fixed-term employment contract of an indication of the circumstances (reasons) that served as the basis for its conclusion for a certain period cannot lead to the recognition of the contract as concluded for an indefinite period. The conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with an employee is due to the specifics of the work.

2. Legality of the extension of the employment contract

The essence of disputes

The employment contract is terminated due to the expiration of its validity period, except for cases when the employment relationship actually continues and neither of the parties has demanded its termination (Article 58, Clause 2, Part 1, Article 77, Article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) . In this situation, the employment contract is considered concluded for an indefinite period.
Labor legislation does not provide for the possibility of extending a fixed-term employment contract. Exceptions are established for pregnant women (part 2 of article 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), employees of higher educational institutions(part 8 of article 332 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), athletes (part 7 of article 348.4 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). According to some authors, a fixed-term employment contract cannot be extended, since the term is its prerequisite and is determined only at the conclusion of the contract. Upon the expiration of the employment contract, it is either considered concluded for an indefinite period in accordance with Part 4 of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, or ceases to operate (see, for example, Interview: LNA - a "minefield" for an employee ("Labor Law", 2011, N 10); Expert advice, 2011).
At the same time, Rostrud, in Letter N 4413-6 dated October 31, 2007, allows for the possibility of amending the employment contract, including in terms of changing its expiration date. To do this, you must sign an additional agreement to the contract.
If the employee believes that in connection with the extension of a fixed-term employment contract, it should be considered concluded for an indefinite period, dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation may cause a dispute.
In the case when the employment contract was concluded in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the resolution of the dispute will depend on whether the reasons that served as the basis for concluding a fixed-term employment contract remain.
If the employment contract was concluded subject to the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the resolution of the dispute will depend on whether the employee belongs to the circle of persons listed in the specified norm, and on the evidence provided by the employer that confirms the employee’s voluntary consent to extend the employment contract for a specified period.

See also:
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision. Disputes about dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract

2.1. Is dismissal legal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the fixed-term employment contract was extended because the circumstances (part 1 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) that served as the basis for concluding it for a certain period remained?

There is judicial practice according to which dismissal in such a situation is lawful.
The courts proceed from the following. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not restrict the ability to establish labor relations for a certain period if there are legal grounds (part 1 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The extension of the employment contract for a period agreed by the parties is lawful if the reasons that served as the basis for concluding a fixed-term employment contract persisted.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic dated December 23, 2013 in case N 33-4638/2013
Worker Requirements: recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period, and the dismissal is illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the employee due to a temporary increase in the volume of work performed. Subsequently, the term of this agreement was repeatedly extended to fulfill the same labor function. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The fixed-term employment contract with the employee was repeatedly extended due to the fact that the circumstances of the temporary increase in the volume of work at the enterprise persisted. Completion of work related to a temporary increase in the volume of services provided is the basis for termination of the employment contract under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Appeal ruling of the court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated May 21, 2012 in case No. 33-996
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the employee for the period of absence of the main employee. The contract was repeatedly extended on the basis of additional agreements for the duration of other key employees on vacation. The employee was fired due to the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when concluding additional agreements, the parties proceeded from the conditions for the employee to perform the labor function of the absent main employee, which is consistent with the requirements of Art. Art. 56 - 60 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the provisions of paragraph 14 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2 on the possibility of recognizing by the court an employment contract concluded for an indefinite period cannot be applied to the relations of the parties, if the facts of the repeated conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short period for the performance of one and the same job function.

Cassation ruling of the Kursk Regional Court dated February 14, 2012
Worker Requirements: reinstatement, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract for the period the main employee was on maternity leave. The contract was extended for the period of parental leave of the main employee. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the entry to work of the main employee.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employment contract concluded with the employee, taking into account the agreement on its extension, is of an urgent nature, concluded for the period the main employee is on parental leave for up to three years. In this regard, there are no grounds for recognizing the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period. Labor legislation was not violated during the dismissal of the employee.

Determination of the Moscow City Court dated September 16, 2010 in case N 33-29036
Worker Requirements: recognize the employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the employee for the period of performing certain work. Subsequently, the deadline for the completion of work was extended for a year, about which an additional agreement was drawn up to the employment contract. The employee was dismissed on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The possibility of concluding a fixed-term employment contract between the parties is provided for by law, therefore the conclusion of an additional agreement to extend the term of the contract is legitimate. Choice by the parties of a temporary nature labor rights relations caused by limited time and scope of work. The employment contract specified its nature and duration. The contract was read and signed by the worker, who agreed to these conditions.

Similar findings include:
Determination of the Moscow City Court of 09/02/2010 in case N 33-27173

2.2. Is dismissal legal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the event of an extension of a fixed-term employment contract, which was concluded by agreement of the parties in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation?

There is a court order by which dismissal in such a situation is recognized as lawful.
The conclusion is based on the fact that the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not restrict the possibility of establishing labor relations for a certain period if there are legal grounds and the consent of the parties (part 2 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Extension of the term of the employment contract for a certain period agreed by the parties does not contradict the law, if the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. In this case, dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation will be lawful.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Determination of the St. Petersburg City Court dated October 18, 2010 N 33-14178 / 2010
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with an employee who is an old-age pensioner, the term of which was extended on the basis of an extension agreement. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
In accordance with Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract terminates with the expiration of its validity. According to part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is permissible to conclude a fixed-term employment contract with retirees entering work by age. Since the parties have agreed to extend the employment contract, there are no grounds to consider the employment contract concluded for an indefinite period.

3. Legal consequences of the repeated conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract

The essence of disputes

The conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract is possible when labor relations cannot be established for an indefinite period, taking into account the nature of the work to be done or the conditions for its implementation (Article 58, Part 1, Article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). With some categories of workers (part 2 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), a fixed-term employment contract may be concluded without taking into account the indicated circumstances by mutual agreement between the parties (Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 15, 2007 N 378-O-P).
However, if the court establishes the fact of the repeated conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short period to perform the same labor function, then it has the right, taking into account the circumstances of the case, to recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period (paragraph 14 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2).
If the dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, with the repeated conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract, it became the cause of the dispute, its resolution will depend on the existence of grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract and the consent of the employee.

See also:
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision. Disputes about dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract

3.1. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if it was concluded repeatedly to perform permanent work?

There is judicial practice according to which dismissal in such a situation is unlawful.
The courts proceed from the following. If the fact of multiple conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short period of time to perform the same labor function is established, the employment contract may be recognized as concluded for an indefinite period (clause 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2).
At the same time, an analysis of the decision of the appellate instance shows that the lower court ruled in favor of the employer, referring to the fact that fixed-term employment contracts were concluded on the basis of the voluntary consent of the parties.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Pskov Regional Court dated June 11, 2013 in case No. 33-903/2013
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal order illegal, reinstate at work, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: Fixed-term employment contracts were repeatedly concluded with the employee to perform the same labor function for periods not associated with a seasonal increase in sales of products. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The requirements of the worker are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Since the fact of the repeated conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short time to perform the same labor function has been established, the employment contract is recognized as concluded for an indefinite period. No evidence was presented to show that the conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract was due to the need to increase the number of jobs due to the temporary expansion of production.

Appeal ruling of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court dated October 23, 2012 in case No. 33-7816
Prosecutor's demands: to recognize a fixed-term employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, to cancel the dismissal orders.
Circumstances of the case: Fixed-term employment contracts for three and six months were repeatedly concluded with employees. At the same time, the labor function, place of work, wages did not change. Employees were dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The demands of the prosecutor are satisfied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
If during the trial the fact of multiple conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short period of time to perform the same labor function is established, the court has the right, taking into account the circumstances of each case, to recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period (paragraph 14 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 03.17. 2004 No. 2).
The fact of the repeated conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts for a short period has been established. At the same time, the labor function of each of the workers did not change.
Part 6 of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it is forbidden to conclude fixed-term employment contracts in order to avoid granting the rights and guarantees provided for employees with whom an employment contract is concluded for an indefinite period.

3.2. Is dismissal due to the expiration of the term of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) with its repeated conclusion, if the reason that led to the conclusion of the contract for a certain period, remains valid?

There is judicial practice, according to which dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in this situation is legitimate.
The courts proceed from the following. In the cases provided for by Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract may be concluded without taking into account the nature of the work to be done and the conditions for its implementation, if there is a voluntary consent of the employee and the employer and the reason for the urgent nature of the employment contract remains.
If the court, when resolving a dispute on the legality of concluding a fixed-term employment contract, establishes that it was concluded by the employee involuntarily, the court applies the rules of the contract concluded for an indefinite period (clause 13 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 N 2).

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Magadan Regional Court dated October 16, 2013 N 33-945/2013 in case N 2-2183/2013
Worker Requirements:
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the head of the organization twice. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
Fixed-term employment contracts are concluded by agreement of the parties (part 2 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) with the free will of the employee. Labor legislation does not contain a ban on the repeated conclusion of a fixed-term employment contract with the head of the organization.

Appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated March 27, 2012 N 33-3786 / 2012
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded several times with an employee who is an old-age pensioner to perform the same job function. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The actions of the employer were recognized as legal, since the employee did not submit applications with a request to conclude an employment contract for an indefinite period, each of the submitted applications contains a request to conclude a fixed-term employment contract.

Determination of the Moscow City Court of December 22, 2011 in case N 33-42571 / 2011
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: 13 fixed-term employment contracts were concluded between the parties for the performance of official duties conductor. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employee has repeatedly signed fixed-term employment contracts, which confirms his consent to their conclusion.
The employer had grounds for concluding, by agreement of the parties, a fixed-term employment contract in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, since the employee is a creative worker whose position is included in the list approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 28, 2007 N 252.

Determination of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court of December 15, 2011 in case N 33-17623/2011
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal order as illegal, the employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: Fixed-term employment contracts with an employee for the position of a choir artist were concluded annually with his consent. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
There are grounds for concluding a fixed-term employment contract with an employee. By agreement of the parties, a fixed-term employment contract may be concluded, among other things, with creative workers of means mass media, cinematography organizations, theaters, theater and concert organizations, circuses and other persons involved in the creation and (or) performance (exhibition) of works, in accordance with the lists of works, professions, positions of these workers, approved by the Government of the Russian Federation (part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The position of the employee is included in the specified list.
Fixed-term employment contracts were concluded with the consent of the employee, which is confirmed by his numerous statements, which express the will of the employee to conclude the next fixed-term employment contract.

Determination of the Moscow City Court dated July 15, 2010 in case N 33-19173
Worker Requirements: recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: FROM CEO The organization entered into a fixed-term contract for three years. Decision general meeting participants, his mandate was extended for another three years, and a new employment contract was concluded.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The decision of the court of first instance was reversed. The case has been remanded for retrial.
The lower court's finding that the term clause of the employment contract was no longer valid was based on a misapplication of substantive law.
The court of first instance did not find out whether the parties had reached an agreement to extend the term of the employment contract for a certain period and whether the reason for the urgent nature of the employment contract remained.
The parties have the right, on the basis of the agreement reached, to conclude an agreement for a certain period. At the same time, if it turns out that the reason for the urgent nature of the employment contract persists by the time the term of the current labor contract expires, the parties may, before the expiration of the term of this contract, extend it for a certain period by issuing such an extension by the relevant agreement, however, the total term of the current contract should not exceed five years.
In accordance with Art. 275 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the case when, in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a fixed-term employment contract is concluded with the head of the organization, the validity period of this employment contract is determined founding documents organization or by agreement of the parties.

4. Compliance with the procedure for notifying an employee of the termination of a fixed-term employment contract

The essence of disputes

According to Part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the employer must notify the employee in writing of the termination of the employment contract due to the expiration of its validity period at least three calendar days before dismissal. The exception is cases when the employment contract is concluded for the period of performance of the duties of the absent employee.
The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not contain requirements for the content of the document by which the employee must be notified of the termination of a fixed-term employment contract. Nevertheless, in such a document it is necessary to indicate its number, date, name of the organization from which the employee is leaving. The notification must be signed by the head or a person having the authority to decide on the dismissal of employees on behalf of the employer (Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.10.2008 N 89-B08-6).
If the dismissal caused a dispute in which the employee refers to the violation of the dismissal procedure by the employer, then its resolution will depend on the availability of evidence from the parties confirming the proper (improper) fulfillment by the employer of its obligation to notify the employee of the termination of a fixed-term employment contract.
An analysis of judicial practice shows that if the employer violated the requirement to notify the employee of the termination of the employment contract, but issued an order to dismiss the employee no later than the last working day of the employee, then the dismissal can be recognized as lawful.

See also:
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision. Disputes about dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract

4.1. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the employee was not notified of the upcoming dismissal or was notified less than three days in advance?

There is jurisprudence and the work of the authors, according to which dismissal in such a situation is legitimate.
Proponents of this position proceed from the following. In accordance with Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the condition on the urgent nature of the employment contract becomes invalid and the employment contract is considered concluded for an indefinite period, when none of the parties demanded the termination of the fixed-term employment contract and the employee continues to perform his duties after the expiration of the contract. If the employer has expressed a desire to terminate the employment relationship before the expiration of the employment contract and the dismissal order is issued no later than the last working day, then the dismissal is legal.
At the same time, an analysis of the decisions of the appellate and cassation instances shows that lower courts sometimes decide in favor of the employee, referring to the violation of his labor rights if the employer fails to comply with the dismissal procedure provided for in Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Irkutsk Regional Court dated January 23, 2013 in case No. 33-450/13
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract. He was not warned about the termination of the employment contract by the employer in a timely manner.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
Since the reason for the dismissal was the expiration of the employment contract, the fact that the employer did not warn the employee about the upcoming termination of the employment contract has no legal significance.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia dated October 17, 2012 in case No. 33-2935
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was fired due to the expiration of the employment contract. She was not warned about the termination of the employment contract in a timely manner.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The content of the fixed-term employment contract indicates that the employee was aware of the period for which it was concluded, with which she agreed.
Failure to comply with Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the need to notify the employee in writing at least three calendar days in advance of the termination of the employment contract due to its expiration cannot be an independent basis for recognizing the dismissal as illegal. The specified norm regulates the relations that arise upon the occurrence of a certain event - the expiration of the established term of the employment contract. This circumstance is not connected with the initiative of the employer and occurs regardless of his will.

Appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated May 23, 2012 N 33-6551/2012
Worker Requirements: recognize a fixed-term employment contract concluded for an indefinite period, recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract. She was not warned in writing about the termination of the employment contract by the employer in a timely manner.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employer loses the right to terminate a fixed-term employment contract with an employee upon the occurrence of an event that is associated with the expiration of its term only if he has not expressed his desire to terminate the employment relationship with the employee before the expiration of the employment contract, and the employee continues to work after its expiration. This conclusion follows from the content of Part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with the provisions of paragraph 4 of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
If the employer's desire to terminate the employment contract is expressed before the expiration of the employment contract and the dismissal order is issued no later than the last working day, then the dismissal is lawful.
The fact that the employee was not promptly and properly warned about the termination of a fixed-term employment contract due to its expiration violates the current labor legislation, but is not a basis for reinstatement.

Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatia dated April 25, 2012 in case No. 33-880
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: A fixed-term employment contract was concluded with the employee in the direction of the employment center. An agreement was concluded between the employment center and the employer on the creation by the latter of jobs for temporary employment of workers for a period of not more than three months. The employee was fired due to the expiration of the employment contract. The dismissal was not announced.
Conclusion and justification of the court:
A fixed-term employment contract is concluded with persons sent by the public employment service to work of a temporary nature and public works (part 1 of article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The content of the fixed-term employment contract and the referral issued by the employment center to the employee testify that she knew both the nature and term of the employment contract, with which she agreed.
Failure to comply with Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the need to notify the employee of the termination of the employment contract due to the expiration of its validity in writing at least three calendar days before the dismissal cannot be an independent basis for recognizing the dismissal as illegal. This rule regulates relations that arise upon the occurrence of a certain event - the expiration of the established term of the employment contract. This circumstance is not connected with the initiative of the employer and occurs regardless of his will.

Determination of the Moscow City Court dated October 6, 2011 in case No. 33-29610
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, reinstate at work, recognize a fixed-term employment contract concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The fixed-term employment contract with the employee was extended in accordance with Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation until the end of the pregnancy. At the end of the pregnancy, the employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the expiration of the employment contract. The notice of termination of the employment contract was handed to her only the next day after the issuance of the dismissal order.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
The employee, agreeing to conclude an employment contract for a fixed period, knew about its termination after the agreed period.
If the term of a fixed-term employment contract expires during the woman's pregnancy, the employer is obliged, upon her written application and upon presentation of a medical certificate confirming the pregnancy, to extend the validity of the employment contract until the end of the pregnancy (Article 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The employee is obliged, at the request of the employer, but not more often than once every three months, to provide a medical certificate confirming the state of pregnancy. If a woman actually continues to work after the end of pregnancy, then the employer has the right to terminate the employment contract with her due to its expiration within a week from the day when the employer knew or should have known about the end of the pregnancy.
The employment contract was extended in accordance with the requirements of Art. 261 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation until the end of the employee's pregnancy. At the end of the pregnancy, she did not begin to perform her labor duties, which gave the employer grounds for terminating the said contract.

Expert advice, 2013
Conclusion and justification of the author: Article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation provides for the need to notify the employee of the termination of the employment contract due to its expiration in writing at least three calendar days before dismissal. Failure to comply with these requirements cannot be an independent basis for recognizing the dismissal as illegal. This rule regulates relations that arise upon the occurrence of a certain event - the expiration of the established term of the employment contract. This circumstance is not connected with the initiative of the employer and occurs regardless of his will.
The fact that the employee was not duly warned about the termination of a fixed-term employment contract in a timely manner violates labor legislation, but is not a basis for reinstatement.

Book: Commentary on the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (under the editorship of Yu.P. Orlovsky) ("CONTRACT", "INFRA-M", 2009)
Conclusion and justification of the author: From the content of Part 4 of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, it follows that the employer loses the right to terminate a fixed-term employment contract on the basis of its expiration only if he has not expressed his desire to terminate the employment relationship with the employee before the expiration of the employment contract, and the employee continues to work. If the employer has expressed such a desire by issuing it as a written warning, the dismissal can be considered lawful if the employer’s desire is expressed, although less than three calendar days, but before the expiration of the employment contract and the dismissal order is issued no later than the last day of work.

Book: Dismissal under all articles of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: A Practical Guide (Medentsev A.S.) ("Exam", 2008)
The author's conclusion: If the employer warned the employee about the upcoming dismissal not three calendar days in advance, but, for example, one, but in writing, and the order (instruction) on dismissal was issued no later than the last day of the employment contract, then based on the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 4 tbsp. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, such dismissal can be considered lawful.

4.1.1. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the employee was not notified of the upcoming dismissal (notified less than three days in advance) and was not familiar with the dismissal order?

There is a court ruling according to which dismissal in such a situation is unlawful.
The conclusion is based on the fact that for the termination of a fixed-term employment contract, only the fact of its expiration is not enough. The will of the parties to terminate the employment relationship must be confirmed by evidence, one of which may be a notice to the employee of dismissal in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The dismissal procedure is violated if the notice of termination of employment is not delivered to the employee or is delivered less than three days before the dismissal. However, this is not an independent basis for recognizing the dismissal as illegal. Essential for the recognition of the dismissal as illegal is the fact that the employee, in violation of Art. 84.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation was not familiar with the dismissal order.
At the same time, an analysis of the decision of the appellate instance shows that the lower court ruled in favor of the employer, indicating that the employer followed the procedure for dismissing the employee.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Krasnodar Regional Court dated May 17, 2012 in case No. 33-7701/2012
Worker Requirements: to oblige to conclude a new employment contract, to reinstate in office.
Circumstances of the case: The employee has been working for a long time under a fixed-term employment contract in a position filled through a competition. He was fired under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation due to the expiration of the employment contract. The employee was not acquainted with the dismissal order; he received a copy of the order on his own initiative in the personnel department after the dismissal.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The employee's requirements are met. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was issued.
Non-compliance by the employer with the established Art. Art. 79, 84.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the dismissal procedure is essential for recognizing the dismissal as unlawful. The duration of work in the same position indicates the permanent nature of the employment relationship between the employee and the employer.

4.2. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the notice of dismissal is signed by a person who is not the head of the organization?

There is a court ruling by which dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation was declared unlawful, since the notification was signed by an unauthorized person.
The conclusion is based on the fact that since the parties to labor relations are the employee and the employer, then only the employer or a person specially authorized by him to perform these actions has the right to notify the employee of the termination of labor relations.
At the same time, an analysis of the decision of the supervisory instance shows that the lower court ruled in favor of the employer, referring to the fact that Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not indicate what details a notification sent to an employee should contain.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 03.10.2008 N 89-В08-6
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The notice sent to the employee about the termination of a fixed-term employment contract with him had neither a number nor a date, it did not indicate the name of the organization. The document was signed by the head of the personnel department and the head of the security department, who did not have the authority to make a decision on behalf of the employer on the dismissal of employees.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is unlawful. The employee's requirements are met. The decisions of the first and second instances were canceled and a new decision was issued.
The decision to terminate the employment contract can only be taken by the employer or a person authorized to do so. In this regard, the head of the organization or the person performing his duties or having duly executed authority to notify the employee has the right to send a notice of impending dismissal to the employee.

4.3. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the notice of dismissal was sent to the employee by mail, but the employee did not receive it for reasons beyond the control of the employer?

There is judicial practice, according to which dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in such a situation is legitimate.
The conclusion is based on the fact that the way in which the employer must notify the employee of the termination of the employment contract is not provided for by labor legislation (part 1 of article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, the employer is given the freedom to choose the method of notifying the employee. In addition, the employer is not obliged to make sure that the employee has read the notice.
At the same time, the analysis of court decisions of the cassation instance shows that lower courts sometimes make decisions in favor of the employee, based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Altai Regional Court dated 04/09/2013 in case N 33-2816/2013
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, recognize the employment contract as concluded for an indefinite period.
Circumstances of the case: The employer mailed the employee a notice of impending dismissal due to the expiration of the employment contract. The employee was dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation until they receive notification.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
From the content of Part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with the provisions of Part 4 of Art. 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation it follows that if the employer's desire to terminate the employment contract is expressed before the expiration of the employment contract and the dismissal order is issued no later than the last working day, then the dismissal is lawful.
Since the notice of the upcoming dismissal was sent by mail in the established part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, then the employee’s failure to receive it is not a basis for reinstatement at work.

Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Khakassia dated September 22, 2011 in case No. 33-22482011
Worker Requirements: recognize the dismissal as illegal, change the date of dismissal.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired under a fixed-term employment contract. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The notice of termination of the employment contract by the employer was sent to the employee by mail four days before the dismissal, but she received it later than the date of dismissal.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was reversed and a new decision was made.
In itself, the receipt by an employee of a notice of termination of a fixed-term employment contract later than the date of dismissal cannot serve as a basis for recognizing the dismissal as illegal, given that the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the legal consequences of failure to comply with the requirement to warn the employee.
The employer sent a worker who lives with him in the same locality, by mail notification within the prescribed period and notified her of the termination of the employment contract more than three days before the dismissal.
The employee, having agreed to the conclusion of an employment contract for a certain period, knew about its termination after the expiration of a predetermined period. Taking into account the legal nature of a fixed-term employment contract, as well as the circumstances related to the warning of the employee, there are no grounds to consider the dismissal illegal.

Cassation ruling of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic dated July 6, 2011 in case N 33-2392/11
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work, invalidate the entry in the work book about the dismissal.
Circumstances of the case: The employer sent a written notice of the expiration of the employment contract with a notice of delivery at the place of residence of the employee. Notification of the delivery of correspondence to the employee was received by the employer. The non-receipt of the notification by the addressee occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the employer and the postal organization.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's claim was denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The employee was duly notified of the expiration of the employment contract. The employer is not obliged to control whether the employee has read the warning. The employer is not obliged to repeatedly notify the employee about the termination of the employment contract. A legally significant circumstance is timely notification in writing.

4.4. Is it legal to dismiss due to the expiration of the employment contract (clause 2, part 1, article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), if the employee was hired during the absence of the main employee and was notified of the termination of the employment contract less than three days before the dismissal?

There is a court ruling and an article by the author, according to which dismissal under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in such a situation is legitimate.
The conclusion is based on the fact that if the employment contract is concluded for the duration of the performance of the duties of an absent employee who has the right to go to work at any time, the exact date of termination of the fixed-term employment contract cannot be determined in advance. But this fact is not grounds for recognizing the contract concluded for an indefinite period. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, under such circumstances, the employer is relieved of the obligation to notify the employee of the termination of labor relations three days in advance.

See also:
The essence of disputes
Consequences for the employer depending on the court decision

See the docs for details:

Appeal ruling of the Oryol Regional Court dated April 25, 2012 in case No. 33-682
Worker Requirements: reinstate at work.
Circumstances of the case: The employee was hired for the period of absence of the main employee. Dismissed under paragraph 2 of part 1 of Art. 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The notice of termination of the employment contract was handed to her on the day of dismissal.
Conclusion and justification of the court: The dismissal is legal. The employee's demands were denied. The decision of the court of first instance was upheld.
The obligation to provide immediately workplace temporarily absent employee, with his intention to go to work, does not allow the employer to notify the temporary employee of the upcoming dismissal three days in advance, and by law he is exempted from such an obligation in this case.

Expert advice, 2012
The author's conclusion: An employment contract concluded for the duration of the performance of the duties of an absent employee terminates with his return to work (part 3 of article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The employer has the right to dismiss a temporary worker, with whom a fixed-term contract is concluded on this basis, without a three-day notice, since such an obligation is not provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The fact that the main employee went to work on a part-time basis cannot be considered as a basis for continuing an employment relationship with a temporary worker, since labor legislation does not establish that an absent employee must take up his duties on a full-time basis.

Decision in favor of the employee
Decision in favor of the employer

1. The decision was made in favor of the employee: the dismissal was declared unlawful

Employer action by court order
For information
1. Pays the employee the average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism (Articles 139, 234, 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation)
In practice, the period of forced absenteeism can range from one month to several years, on average - 2 - 12 months (see, for example, Cassation ruling of the St. December 26, 2011 in case No. 33-42017).

On the withholding of personal income tax, if in a court decision the amount monetary compensation indicated without division into the amount due to the employee and the amount subject to withholding as personal income tax, see the Encyclopedia of Disputable Situations on Personal Income Tax
2. Pays compensation for unused days vacations granted for the period of forced absenteeism, if this requirement was declared by the employee (paragraph 4 of article 121, part 1 of article 127 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation)<*>
For each full calendar month of forced absenteeism, there are 2.33 days of vacation (Letters of Rostrud dated 07.26.2006 N 1133-6, dated 06.23.
3. Pays compensation for non-pecuniary damage if this requirement was stated by the employee (Article 237 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation)
In practice, the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage can range from 500 rubles. up to several tens of thousands of rubles, on average - 3 - 10 thousand rubles. (See, for example, Ruling of the Moscow City Court of 02.02.2011 No. 33-510, Ruling of the Moscow City Court of 06.20.2011 in case No. 33-18731)
4. Reimburses the legal costs of the employee, including the costs of a representative in court, if this requirement was stated by the employee (Articles 94, 98, 99, 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation)
For withholding personal income tax from the amount of compensation for court costs, see the Encyclopedia of Disputable Situations on Personal Income Tax
5. Pays the state duty in the amount calculated from the amounts awarded for payment (Articles 333.17, 333.19 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation)

6. Reinstates the employee if he made such a claim (Art. 394 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 211 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation)

<*>The court decides to pay compensation for unused vacation days provided for the period of forced absenteeism if the employee asks to change the date of dismissal to a later one (see, for example, the Appeal ruling of the St. Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated December 12, 2012 in case No. 11-39862, Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated October 18, 2012 in case No. 11-22130).
At the same time, an analysis of court decisions of the appellate instance shows that lower courts sometimes make decisions to refuse to pay the specified compensation, referring to the fact that the payment of average earnings for the period of forced absenteeism fully compensates for the material damage caused to the employee by illegal dismissal.

2. The decision was made in favor of the employer: the dismissal was recognized as lawful

The employer bears the costs of paying for the services of a representative who is not an employee of the organization (on average for 2 - 12 months). Legal expenses incurred by the employer in connection with the consideration of the case in court are not subject to recovery from the employee (Articles 88, 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). This is due to the fact that employees who have applied to the court with claims arising from labor relations are exempted from paying court costs in accordance with Art. 393 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (see, for example, Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 22, 2011 N 89-B11-2, Review of the cassation practice of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic in civil cases for November 2011).

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation fully regulates the relationship of the parties in the sphere of labor, and the fact of a break in relations is no exception. The necessary procedure for completing labor interactions is also determined.

Legislation governing the process

The current law provides for the following grounds for terminating a relationship in the event of an employment contract being drawn up.

1. The period for which the contract was drawn up has ended.
2. The employee wishes to terminate the document prematurely at will.
3. The employer intends to dismiss the mercenary unilaterally.
4. The parties mutually agree to terminate the contract.
5. Circumstances have arisen that impede the fulfillment of the contract and do not depend on the participants.

Dismissal by agreement of the parties

The best case for each participant is the completion of the contract by mutual agreement. In this case, the reasons may not be indicated, and the form of consent is an addition to the act, a statement from the employee or an order for dismissal.

Effect of force majeure circumstances

This concept includes such situations that do not depend on the will of the parties:

• the employee received a summons to the military registration and enlistment office;
• the former staff in this position was restored;
• disability or death;
• any events that can be qualified as force majeure.

Algorithm of actions for dismissal in connection with the expiration of the contract

The Labor Code fixes the following procedure for dismissal.

1. Notify staff of the termination of the agreement at least 3 days in advance against signature. The notification form is free, as well as with the mutual consent of the parties.

   Download a sample letter of resignation upon expiration of the employment contract

2. Issue an order to complete the contract, familiarize the employee with it. To confirm, he must sign it.
3. Pay the employee compensation for all payments due to him, debts, the balance of wages on the basis of a note-calculation.
4. filled employment history and issued to the owner on the day of dismissal. Place a copy of it in the archive of the enterprise.

Note! If the dismissal is voluntary, then the reason must be reflected in the labor.

1. Record all data in a personal personnel record card.
2. After dismissal, within three days, the employer is obliged to issue certificates, extracts or other documents to the employee upon request.
3. notify by registered mail military commissariat at the place of registration of the dismissed person.

Important! If the employer and employee continue to cooperate after the expiration of the contract, then it is automatically extended.

Former employee refused to accept documents: what to do?

A dismissed employee may refuse to accept the documents provided. In this case, it is required to draw up an act of refusal signed by two colleagues and register it.

The procedure for dismissal in the case of an employment contract for the performance of work

The case when the contract is concluded for the performance of a certain amount of work is not specified in the Code. Lawyers advise to end the relationship by agreement of the parties. In this case, the procedure includes the additional signing of an additional document - the Acceptance Certificate ( unified form No. T-73). Expiration notice is not required.

Download a sample form T-73

Features of termination of the contract for certain categories of workers

If the validity of the document expired during pregnancy, the employer must by law postpone it until the date of vacation. The following categories of women cannot be fired:

• pregnant women;
• having children under three years of age;
• single mothers with a child with a disability, or who is under 14 years old.

Early termination of the contract

The mercenary is obliged to notify about his desire to quit no later than two weeks. The reason may not be specified.

During this period, he has the right to withdraw his application. The duration of the term may be changed by other documents.

The grounds for dismissal at the initiation of the employer may be:

• liquidation of the organization or reduction of staff;
• insufficient qualification of the personnel;
• failure to perform duties without good reason and other violations.

How to dismiss an employee after the expiration of the employment contract says Viktor Bocheev

An employment contract with an employee can be concluded indefinitely or for a fixed period, but not more than five years, unless another period is established by the norms of the current legislation (Article 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

As a rule, a fixed-term employment contract is concluded for the period of fulfillment of the duties of an absent employee, who retains his job, in case of temporary (up to 2 months) or seasonal work, in case of sending an employee to work abroad and in other cases provided for current legislation (Article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

A fixed-term employment contract is terminated upon expiration of its validity period. The employee must be notified in advance of the expiration of the employment contract in writing (Article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

If neither the employee nor the employer demanded the termination of a fixed-term employment contract due to its expiration, and the employee continues to perform obligations under the contract, which has expired, such an employment contract will be considered concluded for an indefinite period (Article 58 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation ).

A notice of the end of a fixed-term employment contract (sample) can be downloaded at the end of the consultation.

Notice of termination of a fixed-term employment contract

A notice of the end of a fixed-term employment contract must be sent to the employee at least three calendar days before his dismissal, except for the case when the contract expires, according to which the employee performed the duties of a temporarily absent employee (Article 79 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In the latter case, the contract automatically ceases to be valid after the temporarily absent employee returns to work.

The notification form is not established by the legislation of the Russian Federation, therefore, the employee is notified of the end of a fixed-term employment contract in a form developed by the company independently.

Notice of termination of a fixed-term employment contract (sample)

Notification of the employee about the termination of a fixed-term employment contract must contain the expiration date of the employment contract and the grounds for its termination. In order to avoid disputes in the future, a note is also made in the notification that the employee has read the notification and received a copy of it in his hands.

Notice of expiration of the employment contract (sample) can be downloaded