The relevant conclusion was made by the Supreme Court of Cassation of 7 August 2019 in the case № 442/61/16.

In the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff appealed to the court to cancel the order of the company to terminate the employment contract and, accordingly, to renew it in office. In addition, the plaintiff requested to recover from the defendant the average earnings for the time of absenteeism and non-pecuniary damage.

The courts found that dismissal was due to changes in the organization of production and labor on the basis of paragraph 1 of Art. 40 of the Labor Code - in violation of the law.

The courts found that the enterprise underwent changes in subordination during the reorganization, but with the preservation of the functionality of its activity, that is, the institution was renamed within one legal entity. Moreover, the position held by the plaintiff was not offered to him, although at the time of the plaintiff's warning and response, the position was vacant.

Therefore, in accordance with Part 4 of Art. 36 of the Labor Code the claimant's employment contract was to be renewed.

In the view of the Supreme Court, one of the most important guarantees for employees in reducing their size or staff is the duty of the owner of the business or his authorized body to hire a worker.

The content of Art. 49-2 Labor Code at the same time an employee shall be offered an available job in the relevant profession or specialty and, in the absence of such work, other available work at the same time as being warned about dismissal due to changes in the organization of production and labor.

Therefore, when considering labor disputes, courts are obliged to find out whether the defendant actually had changes in the organization of production and labor, in particular, the liquidation, reorganization or re-profiling of the enterprise, institution, organization, reduction of the number or staff, or whether the owner or by a body authorized by law to regulate the dismissal of an employee, which is evidence of changes in the organization of production and labor, that the employee has refused to transfer to another job or that the owner or his authorized representative The authority was not able to transfer an employee from his or her consent to another job at the same enterprise, institution, organization, whether he or she had used the dismissed employee's pre-emptive right to leave the job and was warned for 2 months for subsequent dismissal.