YUST  /  Press-center  /  Analitics

Haste makes waste, says the Supreme Court

Tatiana Samarina, Senior Lawyer of the Law Firm "YUST", Doctor at Law

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by its Determination, has revoked the court acts on the case of restoration of a former employee of a bank to her workplace, for the reason that the lower instances erred in their determination of the period, during which the employee may take back the request to quit.

The subject of the dispute

The employee of the bank filed a request for a voluntary dismissal. The employment contract was terminated under clause 3 of part 1 of Article 77 of the LCRF. However, afterwards the employee filed a claim with the court to be restored to the position, giving reasons that the request had been filed under pressure from the management. Besides, the request was not officially submitted to the HR department of the bank, and the telegram of recalling the request was sent on the day of the planned dismissal.

Position of the SC of Russia

According to clause 3 of part 1 of Article 77 of the LCRF, rescission of the employment contract by the employee is a motive of termination of the employment contract. The procedure and terms of the rescission are established by Article 80 of the LCRF, under which the employee is entitled to quit, if he notifies the employer accordingly and in writing not later than two weeks earlier, unless any other period of time is fixed by the LCRF or other federal law. The employee may recall his request at any moment before the end of the notification period. When the notification period ends, the employee may stop working.

Therefore, the employee’s initiative expressed in writing and not changed before the end of the established notification period is the only motive for termination of the employment contract pursuant to Article 80 of the LCRF.


Details of the legal position of the SC of Russia and why the precedent is significant and what conclusions the employers must draw are available at the printed version of the “Bankovskoe Obozrenie (Banking Survey)” magazine No. 12 (December of 2012).

Back to list