The employer cannot issue a reprimand if the employee's guilt is not proven — Supreme Court

To hold an employee disciplinarily liable, the employer must prove all elements of the disciplinary offense, including the employee's guilt and that the violation relates specifically to their job function. If at least one of these elements is not proven, the reprimand is illegal. This conclusion was reached by the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

In case No. 332/5214/23, the head of the legal department challenged two reprimands issued to her for allegedly improper handling of court cases. The employer claimed that due to shortcomings in the organization of the legal department's work, the enterprise's interests were not properly protected in courts. The employee insisted that her personal guilt was not proven and the employer did not establish who exactly committed the violations.

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, which annulled the two reprimands and awarded the employee 20,000 UAH in moral damages.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff worked as a legal advisor and was later temporarily transferred to the position of head of the legal department. In September 2023, the employer twice subjected her to disciplinary action in the form of reprimands.

The first reprimand was issued due to allegedly improper organization of legal support for court cases and failure to ensure the enterprise's representative participated in one of the court hearings. The second concerned the failure to submit a response to a claim and other procedural documents in a commercial case, which, according to the employer, led to inadequate protection of the enterprise's interests in court.

The employee denied her guilt. She pointed out that she herself informed management about some problems in the legal department's work, and some violations were related to the actions of subordinate employees. She also stated that during the official investigation, the employer did not identify the specific guilty person or collect sufficient evidence of her personal responsibility.

What the courts established

The court of first instance concluded that the employer did not prove the presence of a disciplinary offense in the employee's actions. In particular, the employee's guilt and the causal link between her actions and the negative consequences cited by the employer were not confirmed.

The court also noted that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence that the violations, which were the basis for the reprimands, resulted from the failure to perform the duties assigned specifically to the plaintiff as head of the legal department. Although there was a regulation on the legal department in the institution, employee job descriptions had not yet been approved at that time, and responsibility for the unit's tasks was assigned not only to its head but also to other employees.

One of the circumstances noted by the lower courts was that the challenged orders listed several violations, some of which were not properly specified. The courts also pointed out that the employer did not conduct a proper investigation of all circumstances and did not identify the specific person responsible for the violations found.

The appellate court agreed with these conclusions and left the decision unchanged.

Supreme Court's position

The Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court reminded that a disciplinary offense is a culpable failure or improper performance by an employee of their labor duties. To hold a person disciplinarily liable, it is necessary to establish the fact of the violation, the employee's guilt, and the causal link between their actions or inaction and the consequences of such violation. Failure to prove at least one of these elements excludes the presence of a disciplinary offense. The burden of proof lies with the employer.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the employer cannot blame the employee for failing to perform duties not stipulated in the employment contract or duties about which the employee was not properly informed.

Moreover, an order or directive imposing disciplinary sanctions must contain a specific description of the labor discipline violation, the factual circumstances of the offense, and the normative justification defining the violated duty of the employee.

After reviewing the employer's cassation appeal arguments, the Supreme Court agreed with the conclusions of the lower courts that the plaintiff's guilty violation of her labor duties was not proven. The court also took into account that the handling of court cases was the responsibility not only of the head of the legal department but also of other employees of the unit, while the employer did not identify the specific person responsible for the violations committed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the employer's cassation appeal and left the decisions of the courts of first and appellate instances unchanged. The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.

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