When Redundancy Is Lawful: The Supreme Court Clarified Guarantees for Employees

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of a practical psychologist at the Chernihiv polyclinic who challenged his dismissal due to staff reduction. The court concluded that the employer complied with the procedure stipulated by the Labor Code: the employee was warned in advance about the dismissal, the position redundancy was real, and the preferential right to remain employed belonged to another employee with higher qualifications and longer work experience in the specialty.

Circumstances of the Case

The practical psychologist of the Municipal Non-Commercial Enterprise "Family Polyclinic" of the Chernihiv City Council had worked at the institution intermittently since 2007, holding the last position at half-time. In April 2023, he filed a lawsuit demanding to declare the dismissal order unlawful, reinstate him at work, recover average earnings for the forced absence period, establish the fact of mobbing, and compensate moral damages.

The plaintiff claimed that the medical institution's management systematically pressured him, repeatedly warned about the upcoming redundancy, and ultimately dismissed him in violation of labor law. He argued that the employer did not offer all possible employment options, incorrectly determined the employee who should remain, and that the redundancy of his position actually occurred after the dismissal.

The case was reviewed multiple times by courts. Initially, the court of first instance denied the claim, and the appellate court only changed the dismissal date. In July 2024, the Supreme Court annulled the appellate decision and sent the case for reconsideration, emphasizing that to properly resolve the dispute, it was necessary to thoroughly verify staffing schedules and establish the actual date of the plaintiff's position removal from the staffing list. After reconsideration, the appellate court again concluded the dismissal was lawful.

What the Courts Established

The courts found that at the end of 2022, the polyclinic management decided to reduce 0.5 of a full-time practical psychologist position. The employer justified this by the expiration of contracts with the National Health Service of Ukraine (NHSU) and the expected non-signing of contracts for certain medical service packages, which, in their opinion, would lead to reduced funding and staff cuts.

The employee was personally warned about the upcoming redundancy on December 30, 2022, more than two months before dismissal.

When determining the candidate for redundancy, the employer compared two employees holding similar positions. The commission considered their qualifications, work experience, and other circumstances. The other psychologist had the qualification category "specialist of the highest category" and over 22 years of experience in the specialty, while the plaintiff had the second qualification category and about 12 years of experience. Based on this comparison, the commission determined that the preferential right to remain employed belonged to the other employee.

During the repeated appellate review, the court examined staffing schedules and established that according to changes approved in December 2022, from March 2, 2023, 0.5 of a full-time practical psychologist position of the second qualification category was removed from the staffing list. This was the position the plaintiff held as his main job. Thus, the position was reduced before the dismissal order dated March 6, 2023, was issued.

Supreme Court's Position

The Civil Cassation Court reminded that in disputes regarding dismissal due to staff reduction, courts do not assess the advisability of the reduction itself. They verify whether changes in the organization of work actually occurred and whether the employer complied with legal requirements during the employee's dismissal.

The Supreme Court noted that one of the main guarantees for an employee during redundancy is the employer's obligation to offer available vacancies. This obligation is considered fulfilled if the employee is offered all realistically available vacant positions that he can occupy considering his education, qualifications, and work experience.

The court agreed with the conclusions of previous instances that the staff reduction was real and documented, the employee was properly warned about the upcoming dismissal, and the employer duly verified the preferential right to remain employed. The court also took into account that the other employee had a higher qualification category and significantly longer work experience in the specialty.

The Supreme Court also rejected the claim that the plaintiff was dismissed during vacation. The courts established that on the dismissal date, he was not granted unpaid leave at his main job, so these arguments were deemed unfounded.

The court also dismissed the assertion about the availability of a 0.5 position vacancy during the main employee's childcare leave. The Supreme Court noted that such a position was not vacant since it was already held by the plaintiff under internal part-time employment.

Separately, the Supreme Court disagreed with the argument that the plaintiff's position was reduced only from April 1, 2023. The court pointed out that by the order dated December 27, 2022, changes were made to the staffing schedule, removing 0.5 of a practical psychologist position from March 2, 2023. These facts were confirmed by the extract from the staffing changes effective at the time of the employee's dismissal.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that the rest of the cassation appeal's arguments essentially amounted to disagreement with the evidence evaluation and the facts established by the courts, while re-evaluation of evidence is beyond the powers of the cassation court.

Considering the established circumstances, the Civil Cassation Court dismissed the cassation appeal, leaving the decision of the Novozavodskyi District Court of Chernihiv and the ruling of the Chernihiv Appellate Court in case 751/3322/23 unchanged. The ruling took legal effect upon adoption and is final.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.