Were You Forced to Resign? The Supreme Court Explained the Boundary Between Proposal and Coercion in Labor Disputes
The Supreme Court reviewed case No. 607/17615/24, in which a bank employee attempted to challenge her dismissal, claiming psychological pressure and mobbing by the employer. The court effectively defined the boundary between a proposal to terminate employment and coercion to resign.
The essence of the dispute
The plaintiff claimed that she was effectively forced to write a resignation letter by mutual agreement. In her opinion, management exerted psychological pressure, created a conflict around granting leave, and proposed to terminate the employment relationship.
The court of first instance agreed with these arguments and even reinstated the employee, awarding her over 465 thousand UAH in average earnings and moral damages.
However, the appellate court overturned this decision, and the Supreme Court upheld the appeal.
The conflict began after the employee submitted a request for annual leave.
The managers expressed remarks regarding the fulfillment of planned targets and KPIs. A dispute arose over the approval of the leave, after which the employee claimed mobbing.
Subsequently, the employer proposed to terminate the employment relationship by mutual agreement.
The employee agreed and after the leave submitted a written resignation letter. In the letter, she stated that she had no claims against the bank.
After dismissal, she immediately found employment at another bank.
Only later did the former employee turn to the court, claiming that her consent to resign was the result of psychological pressure.
Why the Supreme Court did not find mobbing
The court noted several important circumstances.
- A proposal to resign is not a violation
The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the initiative to terminate an employment contract by mutual agreement can come from either the employee or the employer.
The mere fact that the employer proposed resignation by mutual agreement does not indicate the illegality of such actions.
The employee has the right to agree or refuse.
- The decisive factor is the employee's behavior
After submitting the resignation letter, the employee:
- did not withdraw the letter;
- did not request to cancel the agreement on dismissal;
- did not return to work after the dismissal date;
- did not take actions to continue the employment relationship;
- immediately found employment with another employer.
According to the court, such behavior indicated a genuine desire to terminate the employment relationship.
- Conflict and mobbing are not the same
The court reminded that mobbing is systematic, prolonged, and intentional actions aimed at humiliating an employee or creating a hostile atmosphere.
In contrast, a regular labor conflict, discussions about work results, workload, or KPI fulfillment do not by themselves prove mobbing.
What about the recorded conversation?
One of the employee's key pieces of evidence was an audio recording of a conversation with the manager.
However, even this evidence did not help win the case.
The Supreme Court noted that the content of the recording does not show indisputable coercion to resign.
In the recording, the parties discussed work issues, the situation in the team, workload, and leave. The court did not see evidence of psychological pressure that would have forced the employee to write a resignation letter.
Effectively, the Supreme Court demonstrated that even if an audio recording exists, it must clearly confirm illegal pressure, not just a conflictual or unpleasant conversation.
Important conclusion for employers and employees
As noted by the Labor and Employment Inspection of the Dnipro City Council, this case shows that to challenge a dismissal by mutual agreement, it is insufficient to merely claim psychological pressure or mobbing.
It is necessary to prove:
- the absence of free will of the employee;
- the presence of systematic and prolonged pressure;
- a causal link between such pressure and the submission of the resignation letter.
If the employee voluntarily signs the resignation letter, does not withdraw it, does not dispute the dismissal, and behaves as a person who agreed to terminate the employment relationship, the chances of reinstatement are significantly reduced.
Thus, dismissal by mutual agreement can only be overturned if it is proven that the agreement did not actually exist.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
