Downtime under the period of martial law

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of different interpretation of the same legislative norms of labor law, which were adopted in connection with the introduction of martial law. In order to promptly resolve the issues facing the parties to labor relations, the legislator adopted new and introduced certain changes to existing regulations. The purpose of such changes was to solve the problems faced by the employer and the employee after the introduction of martial law. But some gaps in legislation that were not taken into account by the legislator had the opposite effect and in some cases led to the emergence of a new problem - not just an unequal interpretation of such norms by the parties to labor relations, but also the use by the employer of such an unequal interpretation in their favor. The article also highlights the problem of non-compliance by the employer with the legislatively fixed mechanism for declaring a simple, abuse by the employer of the right to limit the constitutional rights of an employee, although during the period of martial law labor law should remain the guarantor of observance of the rights of workers to work. Based on the analysis of judicial practice that has appeared recently, the main differences in the interpretation by the employer and the employee of the legislative norms governing the issue of downtime are allocated. Disagreements between the parties to labor relations constantly arose in peaceful times, and after the introduction of the martial law even escalated. The analysis of judicial practice, which was formed in the modern realities of life, allows us to conclude that the announcement of a simple employer is not treated as the lawmaker wanted when adopting laws that were designed to regulate labor relations during the martial law. For many employers, downtime has become a way to reduce the financial and economic costs of the entity, it is announced even in the absence of conditions for its introduction. In general, the courts take the side of employees and require employers to prove circumstances that would indicate the existence of conditions for declaring downtime. It is good that the courts fairly resolve current situations, however, it would be advisable to have no prerequisites for protecting rights in court.