Employee demanded compensation after dismissal and claimed mobbing: why the court denied the claim

The Zavodskyi District Court of Mykolaiv city considered a civil case filed by an employee against an LLC to cancel the dismissal order, reinstate her at work, recover average earnings for the forced absence period, wage arrears, compensation for unused vacation, and moral damages.

Case circumstances

The plaintiff stated that she responded to a vacancy for a tender specialist with a remote work format. According to her, during negotiations with the employer’s representatives, the remote nature of the work and performing duties in the ProZorro system were agreed upon.

After hiring, the employer issued an order appointing her as a sales manager (administrator) with a probation period and prepared an employment contract and job description. The plaintiff claimed she did not sign these documents nor was she acquainted with them under signature, so she believed there was no agreement on the probation period between the parties.

Additionally, the plaintiff indicated that she was not provided with the necessary office equipment, and the actual working conditions differed from those discussed during hiring. She believed that on her first working day, the employer unjustifiably wrote a report about her alleged unsuitability for the position, although objectively assessing professional qualities after a few hours of remote work was impossible.

The plaintiff also stated that later psychological pressure (mobbing) was applied to force her resignation. She complained to the company management and the State Labor Service.

Subsequently, the employer issued an order to dismiss the employee under paragraph 11 of part one of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine due to unsuitability for the position during probation.

The plaintiff considered the dismissal unlawful, citing failure to make full payment on the dismissal day, non-payment of wages for actual work performed, and compensation for unused vacation, and also requested moral damages.

The defendant opposed the claim, stating the dismissal order was lawful and drew the court’s attention to the plaintiff’s missing the one-month deadline for filing a reinstatement claim.

Court’s position and conclusions

The court established that the employee was hired with a one-month probation period according to the hiring order.

The court cited articles 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, and paragraph 11 of part one of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, noting that parties may agree on probation to verify the employee’s suitability for the assigned work. If unsuitability is found during probation, the employer has the right to dismiss the employee with a three-day written notice.

The court emphasized that determining the employee’s suitability is the employer’s right, who evaluates the employee’s work results during probation.

At the same time, the court noted that according to article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, in dismissal cases, the employee must file a claim within one month from the date of receiving the dismissal order copy or the employment record book. This deadline applies regardless of the reason for termination.

From case materials No. 487/737/26, the court found the plaintiff received the dismissal order copy no later than December 11, 2025, but filed the claim only on January 30, 2026. She did not provide valid reasons for missing the deadline.

Under these circumstances, the court concluded that the reinstatement claim was justified in subject matter but must be denied due to missing the deadline established by article 233 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.

Regarding the mobbing claims, the court cited article 2-2 of the Labor Code of Ukraine, defining mobbing as systematic, repeated, and prolonged intentional actions or inactions by the employer or other employees aimed at humiliating the employee’s honor and dignity, business reputation, or creating a tense, hostile, or offensive atmosphere.

The court stressed that the essential feature of mobbing is the systematic and prolonged nature of such actions, and lawful employer demands for proper performance of duties cannot be considered mobbing.

After examining the evidence, the court concluded the plaintiff did not prove the presence of mobbing signs by proper and admissible evidence.

The court also noted that claims for wage recovery, moral damages, and other related claims were denied because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence confirming these circumstances, including proving moral damage, causal link between employer’s actions and claimed suffering, and justified damage amount.

In conclusion, the court denied the claim in full.

The decision may be appealed by submitting an appeal to the Mykolaiv Court of Appeal.

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