Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Ukraine (Ratification: 1994)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (KVPU), received on 31 August 2023. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 2(2)(b) of the Convention. Exclusion of workers’ serving a probationary period. The Committee notes that the 1971 Labour Code, as amended, is still undergoing revision. The Government indicates that a draft Labour Code, was developed by the Ministry of Economy and will be submitted, following coordination meetings, to the Government for consideration. In response to the Committee’s previous request, the Government merely reiterates its comments that, pursuant to the draft Labour Code, when concluding an employment contract, the parties may agree to a probation period, which shall not exceed: (i) one month, for blue collar workers; (ii) three months, for regular employees, or six months, if agreed with the relevant elected body of the primary trade union. The Government also indicates that the same provisions are contained in sections 26-28 of the Labour Code, which regulate probation period. The Committee notes that both the amended 1971 Labour Code and the draft Labour Code stipulate varying probationary periods for different categories of workers. The Committee reiterates its request for the Government to provide the rationale behind this differentiation.

Article 11. Reasonable period of notice during probationary period. The Committee had previously noted that an employer may dismiss an employee during the probationary period with three days’ written notice. Hence, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate how the effect is given to the Convention with regard to this category of employees, taking into account that, under Article 11 the Convention, the period of notice provided must be “reasonable” and that the need for a notice period is independent of the requirement of valid reason for termination of employment (General Survey of 1995 on protection against unjustified dismissal, paragraph 240). Noting the absence of information in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which effect is given to Article 11 of the Convention, while ensuring a balance between the need for employers to assess new hires with the rights of employees to fair treatment.

Parts IV and V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee notes statistical information provided by the Government indicating that, in 2022, 14,352 cases were pending civil proceedings before the courts of first instance, of which 377 cases concerned termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. It also notes that the Government provides separate figures on terminations concerning disciplinary misconduct and those undertaken at employer’s initiative for other reasons, and that the figures provided are not exact but may, to some extent, differ from the courts’ statistics. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, examples of collective agreements in force and court decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention, including decisions addressing the probationary period and notice period, grounds for termination (Part IV of the report form), terminations for reasons of economic, technological, structural or similar reasons as well as available statistics on the number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided (Part V).