Russia | Review of 2026 Case Law on Labor Disputes

In 2026, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the appellate courts issued a number of rulings on labor disputes that are shaping new case law. Below is an analysis of representative cases: they will help you manage your relationship with employees and avoid risky situations.

1. Resignation by mutual agreement under pressure

The second Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for 2026 includes a case in which an employee challenged a termination agreement. He claimed that he had signed the document under psychological pressure from management—to avoid dismissal on negative grounds.

Key Point: The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation confirmed that an employee has the right to challenge such a termination if they can prove that their consent was not given voluntarily. Various circumstances may support this claim: pressure, a lack of understanding of the consequences, the absence of any guarantees for the employee in the agreement, or an atmosphere that gave rise to fears of negative consequences in the event of refusal. At the same time, the coercive nature of the situation can be substantiated by any evidence—not only written evidence but also, for example, video recordings of conversations. Lower courts sometimes took a purely formal approach to this issue, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation emphasized the need to analyze the factual circumstances more thoroughly.

2. Termination of a Remote Employee for Lack of Cooperation

Disputes often arise regarding Article 312.8 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (dismissal for failure to report to work for more than two consecutive days). The courts emphasize that even if the grounds for dismissal are formally present, the employer is required to follow the proper procedure for imposing disciplinary action.

For example, in Ruling No. 88-4974/2025 of the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 31, 2025, the court reinstated an employee because the employer had not requested a written explanation from the employee prior to issuing the dismissal order. The court noted that dismissal on this ground constitutes a disciplinary sanction, and therefore Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation must be followed. Courts also pay attention to details: whether communication channels were agreed upon in advance, whether instances of failure to respond were documented in official records, and whether the employee had valid reasons.

3. What Constitutes a Calculation Error in the Case of an Overpayment of Salary

Ruling No. 46-KG25-8-K6 of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation resolved a long-standing dispute over the distinction between a calculation error and a technical error. The situation: an accountant entered 1,064 shifts into the program instead of 10.64, resulting in a significant overpayment. The Court of Cassation classified this as a technical error, but the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned that ruling.

The Supreme Court’s position: a calculation error is not limited to a classic “mental” arithmetic mistake but also includes an error made when entering data into a computer program, provided it resulted in an incorrect mathematical calculation of the amount due. At the same time, in order to recover the overpayment as unjust enrichment, it is important to establish the employee’s bad faith (for example, refusal to return the overpayment, or resignation shortly after receiving the excess amount).

4. Distinction Between Types of Payments in Connection with Disciplinary Action

In the first quarter of 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued Ruling No. 15-P.

Summary: In some companies, internal regulations stipulate that, in the event of disciplinary action, an employee loses all or part of their incentive bonuses (for seniority, job grade, or academic degree) for an extended period (“until the disciplinary action is lifted”).

The Constitutional Court’s ruling: Articles 129, 132, and 135 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation do not contradict the Constitution, but their meaning has been clarified. Rules cannot be established that allow for the complete suspension of an allowance linked to an employee’s qualifications due to a misconduct. Nor can the amount of such an allowance be arbitrarily reduced beyond the period during which the violation was discovered. However, a performance-based bonus (KPI) for the month in which the misconduct occurred may be reduced.

Practical Conclusion

Case law from 2026 reveals a consistent trend: courts are increasingly less likely to accept employers’ “formal” arguments and are analyzing the factual circumstances of a case in greater depth. Whereas in the past, the mere existence of a document (an order, a report, a signature) was often sufficient, courts now examine whether the employee’s consent was voluntary, whether procedures were followed, whether the punishment was proportionate, and whether the decisions made were logical.

What Employers Should Pay Particular Attention To

Strict adherence to procedural requirements in all disciplinary actions and terminations.

Courts require strict compliance with Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: before imposing a disciplinary sanction, the employer must request a written explanation from the employee. Even if the employee remains silent, the mere fact of the request (with confirmation of delivery) is a mandatory element of the evidentiary record. Omitting this step is one of the most common reasons for an employee’s reinstatement.

Evidence of Voluntary Termination by Mutual Agreement

Following the Russian Supreme Court’s ruling that an agreement can be challenged if pressure is proven, it is important for employers to document the negotiation process. This may include correspondence, meeting minutes, and evidence of the absence of coercion. This is particularly critical if the agreement does not provide for any payments or guarantees for the employee: courts interpret this as a potential lack of genuine consent.

A clear distinction between types of payments and the rules for reducing them

Given the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, an employer cannot arbitrarily deprive an employee of allowances related to qualifications (for seniority, job grade, or academic degree). Such payments should not depend on disciplinary action. However, a bonus tied to KPIs may be adjusted for the specific month in which the misconduct occurred. It is important that local regulations clearly specify the criteria and limits for reductions—otherwise, a court may deem the procedure arbitrary.

Careful handling of calculation errors and the refund of overpayments

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has expanded the definition of a “calculation error”: it now includes errors in data entry into a program if they resulted in an incorrect mathematical result. However, to recover an overpayment, it is necessary to prove not only the error but also the employee’s bad faith (for example, refusal to return the money or prompt termination following receipt of the overpayment). Without this, the recovery may be deemed unlawful.

Documentation of remote work and communication

For remote employees, it is critical to document communication channels, response times, and reporting procedures. If these details are not specified, the employee may cite actual practice (for example, “we always communicated via messenger, not email”), and courts take such arguments into account. All instances of a lack of communication must be documented in official records and confirmed by proof of delivery of notifications.