04 July 2025

Collective Labor Disputes in Russia: Resolution Procedures and Legal Regulation

July 4, 2025

BRACE Law Firm ©

The Constitution of Russia guarantees the right to collective labor disputes. However, many specialists consider the legal regulation of their resolution to be of little relevance. This opinion is based on the fact that the social environment in the country has been stable in recent years, and the number of collective labor disputes is insignificant.

However, such data is incomplete, as disputes often occur in latent or unregulated forms, are suppressed by employers, and are not widely covered in the media. According to the Center for Monitoring and Analysis of Social and Labor Conflicts of the Saint Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences, [1] 169 collective labor disputes occurred in 2024. The most conflict-prone sectors of the economy include healthcare, transport, housing and communal services, and construction. Nevertheless, a correctly conducted collective dispute can effectively resolve disagreements between an employer and a workforce and lead to an agreement without prolonged disputes and significant losses.

This article examines:

the legal methods provided by labor legislation for resolving collective labor disputes between employees and employers;
the procedures for conducting them;
the rights and obligations of the parties when resolving a dispute; and
the liability for violations committed during a collective dispute.

The Concept of a Collective Labor Dispute

Labor disputes can be individual or collective. Every year, a significant number of lawsuits are filed in court by employees against a single employer with an identical subject matter. However, this does not make them collective.

According to Article 398 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Labor Code"), a "collective labor dispute" is an unresolved disagreement between employees (their representatives) and employers (their representatives) regarding the establishment and amendment of labor conditions (including wages), the conclusion, amendment, and performance of collective agreements and accords, as well as in connection with the employer's refusal to consider the opinion of the elected representative body of employees when adopting local normative acts.

Thus, a "collective labor dispute" is characterized by the following features:

A special composition of parties. One party to the dispute is a group of employees linked by a certain organizational unity (union members, employees of an organization, branch, or representative office), while the second party is the employer.
A special subject of disagreement. In a collective dispute, three types of disagreements are considered:

the establishment and amendment of labor conditions;
the conclusion, amendment, and performance of collective agreements and accords; and
the employer's refusal to consider the opinion of the elected representative body of employees when adopting local normative acts.

Let us illustrate this with an example from judicial practice. In Case No. 2-232/2024, [2] K., S., and Sh. filed a lawsuit against an Institution to declare the decisions of a labor collective conference illegal. To support their claims, they stated that they are employees of the defendant. The Institution held a conference of labor collective delegates regarding the extension of the chief physician's term of office until the age of 70. The delegates unanimously adopted a decision to "petition the Ministry of Health for an extension of the chief physician's term of office". The plaintiffs claimed that significant violations occurred during the conference, including non-compliance with the Labor Code's rules on the procedure for resolving collective labor disputes.

The court decided that the agenda items did not constitute a collective labor dispute between the employer and the employees; instead, they served as an expression of the employees' will on a specific issue. The plaintiffs' disagreement with the majority opinion of the labor collective was their personal opinion. The court denied the claims.

Thus, under the provisions of current legislation, for a dispute to be recognized as collective, these features must be present in their entirety. Disputes that do not meet these criteria are considered under the procedure provided for resolving individual labor disputes.

Procedures Preceding a Collective Labor Dispute

Chapter 61 of the Labor Code is dedicated to the resolution of collective labor disputes.

A collective labor dispute is preceded by the employees putting forward their demands. Only employees and their representatives (union organizations or other representatives elected by employees) have the right to put forward demands. The employer does not have this right.

Demands must be set out in writing and approved at a meeting (conference) of employees. The Labor Code establishes quorum requirements: a meeting of employees is considered competent if more than half of the employees are present; a conference of delegates is competent if at least two-thirds of the elected delegates are present. If it is impossible to hold a meeting or conference, the decision may be approved by collecting signatures in support of the demands from more than half of the employees. The demands must be sent to the employer and may also be sent to Rosztravnadzor. The method of delivery to the employer is not regulated by law; however, we believe it is necessary to record the fact and date of receipt to minimize the risk of being found in violation of the dispute resolution procedure.

The employer must consider the demands and notify the representative body of employees of its decision in writing within two business days of receiving the demands (Article 400 of the Labor Code).

If the employer satisfies the employees' demands, no collective labor dispute arises. The "commencement date of a collective labor dispute" is the day the employer notifies of its rejection of all or part of the employees' (their representatives') demands, or the employer's failure to communicate its decision within the period established by law.

Thus, for the demand submission procedure to comply with the law, demands must be in writing, approved by an authorized body, and sent to the employer in compliance with statutory deadlines. The employer, in turn, to avoid accusations of evading negotiations, must provide a written response to the received demands within the timeframes set by law.

Methods for Resolving a Collective Labor Dispute

"Conciliation procedures" are used to resolve collective disputes. Chapter 61 of the Labor Code provides for the following types of conciliation procedures:

consideration of the collective labor dispute by a conciliation commission;
consideration of the collective labor dispute with the participation of a mediator; and
consideration of the collective labor dispute in labor arbitration.

In addition to conciliation procedures, the state body for the settlement of collective labor disputes (Rosztravnadzor) may be involved, or a strike may be initiated.

Below we discuss the procedure for each of these methods in detail.

1. Consideration of a collective labor dispute by a conciliation commission. Consideration of a dispute by a conciliation commission is a mandatory stage of considering a collective labor dispute. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement as a result can they proceed to other conciliation procedures.

A conciliation commission is created within two business days of the start of the collective labor dispute. The commission is formed from representatives of the parties to the dispute on an equal basis. The decision to create a conciliation commission is formalized by an employer's order and a decision by the employees' representative. Parties to a collective labor dispute may not evade the creation of a conciliation commission or participation in its work. The employer must provide the conditions for the commission's activities.

The conciliation commission must consider the dispute within three business days of its creation; if necessary, the deadlines may be extended by agreement of the parties. The decision of the conciliation commission is formalized by a protocol, which is binding on the parties and must be executed in the manner and within the timeframes established by the decision.

If an agreement is not reached or is not reached on all issues during the consideration by the conciliation commission, a protocol of disagreements is drawn up, and the parties proceed to negotiations on considering the labor dispute with a mediator or in labor arbitration.

2. Consideration of a collective labor dispute with the participation of a mediator. No later than the next business day after the protocol of disagreements is drawn up, the parties must conduct negotiations on considering it with the participation of a mediator. If the parties agree to consider the dispute with a mediator, an agreement is concluded, and a mediator is selected. The parties may select the mediator independently or request a recommendation from Rosztravnadzor. Any independent specialist may serve as a mediator; the law does not impose special requirements on the candidate. The primary function of the mediator is to assist the parties in finding a mutually acceptable solution.

Consideration of the dispute with a mediator is carried out within three business days of the invitation. The procedure for considering a collective labor dispute with a mediator is determined by an agreement between the parties to the dispute and the mediator. The mediator has the right to request and receive from the parties necessary documents and information regarding the dispute. Based on the results, a coordinated decision is formalized in writing, or a protocol of disagreements is drawn up if consent is not reached.

If an agreement on considering the dispute with a mediator or on the candidate is not reached, a protocol on the refusal of this conciliation procedure is drawn up. In this case, the parties proceed to negotiations on considering the dispute in labor arbitration.

3. Consideration of a dispute in labor arbitration. Labor arbitration is a body for considering collective labor disputes. Labor arbitration is created by the parties to the collective labor dispute jointly with Rosztravnadzor. The composition and regulations of the temporary arbitration are established by the decision of the employer, the employees' representative, and Rosztravnadzor. Labor arbitration is created only by the voluntary expression of the parties' will. An exception is provided if a strike is prohibited by law. In such cases, the creation of labor arbitration and its decisions are mandatory for the parties.

The period for considering a collective labor dispute is three business days. The decision of the labor arbitration is transferred to the parties in writing. If no agreement is reached during the conciliation procedures or the employer fails to fulfill the reached agreements, employees may declare a strike.

Strikes as a Method of Resolving a Collective Dispute

In accordance with Article 395 of the Labor Code, a "strike" is a temporary voluntary refusal by employees to perform labor duties (fully or partially) for the purpose of resolving a collective labor dispute.

The law allows a strike in the following cases:

if conciliation procedures did not lead to a resolution of the dispute; or
if the employer fails to fulfill reached agreements or does not execute the decision of the labor arbitration (Article 409 of the Labor Code).

Exceptions to this rule are established by Article 413 of the Labor Code. Strikes are not permitted:

during the introduction of martial law or a state of emergency;
in the bodies of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and other militarized formations and organizations responsible for state defense and security, emergency rescue, search and rescue, fire-fighting operations, or the prevention or liquidation of natural disasters and emergencies, or in law enforcement agencies;
in organizations directly serving particularly dangerous types of production or equipment;
at emergency and urgent medical aid stations;
in organizations directly related to ensuring the vital activities of the population (energy supply, heating and heat supply, water supply, gas supply, aviation, railway, and water transport, communications, hospitals), if their conduct creates a threat to national defense and state security, or to the life and health of individuals; and
in other cases provided for by federal laws. For example, such restrictions are established for state and municipal employees, civil aviation personnel involved in air traffic control, and several others.

The procedure for conducting strikes is detailed in labor legislation.

The decision to declare a strike is made by a meeting (conference) of employees at the proposal of the representative body of employees authorized to resolve the collective labor dispute. The competency requirements for the meeting (conference) are identical to those established for putting forward demands. If it is impossible to hold a meeting (conference), it is permitted to organize the collection of signatures from more than half of the employees in favor of conducting it.

The employer must be warned of the upcoming strike in writing five business days in advance. The decision to declare a strike must specify:

the list of disagreements serving as the basis for declaring the strike;
the date and time the strike starts and the expected number of participants;
the name of the body leading the strike and the composition of employee representatives authorized to participate in conciliation procedures; and
proposals for the minimum of necessary work (services). The "minimum of necessary work (services)" consists of tasks performed during the strike. It is approved by the federal executive body responsible for regulating the relevant industry in coordination with the relevant national trade union. Specifically, such lists have been approved for the medical industry, agricultural enterprises, light industry, and healthcare and pharmaceutical organizations. Executive authorities approve regional lists based on these.

A representative body of employees leads the strike. It has the right to convene meetings (conferences) of employees, receive information from the employer on issues affecting employee interests, and involve specialists to prepare opinions on disputed issues. It also has the right to suspend the strike. Resuming the strike does not require a second consideration of the collective labor dispute by a conciliation commission or labor arbitration.

The employer notifies Rosztravnadzor of the upcoming strike. If the strike does not start within two months of the decision date, the parties return to conciliation procedures.

During the strike, the parties to the collective labor dispute must continue resolving the dispute through negotiations. During the strike, the employer and the body leading the strike must take measures within their control to ensure public order, the preservation of employer and employee property, and the operation of machinery and equipment whose stoppage poses an immediate threat to life and health.

Declaring a strike without observing the statutory deadlines, procedures, and requirements is illegal. Specifically, as stated in paragraph 59 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 2 dated March 17, 2004, On the Application by the Courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, a strike is recognized as illegal if:

conciliation procedures were not conducted before the strike was declared;
the decision to conduct a strike was made without the necessary quorum;
the minimum of necessary work (services) to be performed during the strike was not ensured; or
the employer was not warned in writing within the deadlines established by law.

Cases regarding the recognition of a strike as illegal fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme courts of republics, regional, provincial, and city courts of federal significance, and courts of autonomous regions and districts. They are considered under the rules of adversarial proceedings based on a lawsuit filed by the employer or a prosecutor.

Let us illustrate this with an example from judicial practice. In Case No. 3-2383/2023, [3] a Company filed a lawsuit to recognize a strike as illegal. To support the claims, the plaintiff stated that the strike was declared without regard for the deadlines, procedures, and requirements established by the Labor Code.

During the court hearing, the defendant explained that the director was informed of disagreements with the labor collective. The court established that the employer was notified of the strike on the day it began, conciliation procedures were not conducted, fewer than 50% of employees participated in the decision to strike, and the employees' demands were not approved at a relevant meeting (conference). The court decided that the strike was declared without regard for the deadlines, procedures, and requirements of labor legislation and recognized it as illegal.

A court decision recognizing a strike as illegal is subject to immediate execution. Employees must stop the strike and return to work no later than the next day after a copy of the court decision is delivered to the body leading the strike.

If an immediate threat to life and health is created, the court also has the right to postpone a strike that has not yet started or suspend a strike that has already begun for up to 15 days. The Government of the Russian Federation also has the right to suspend a strike for up to 10 calendar days.

Guarantees for Participants in a Collective Labor Dispute

The Labor Code provides the following guarantees for participants in a collective labor dispute. Members of the conciliation commission and labor arbitrators are released from their main work for the duration of their participation in resolving the collective labor dispute while maintaining their average earnings for a period of no more than three months within one year.

Employee representatives involved in resolving a dispute may not be subjected to disciplinary action, transferred to another job, or dismissed at the employer's initiative during the dispute resolution period without the prior consent of the body that authorized them to represent (Article 405 of the Labor Code).

For example, in Case No. 33-1359/2025, [4] O. filed a lawsuit against an employer for reinstatement, recovery of average earnings for the duration of forced absence in the amount of 1,154,162 rubles, compensation for delayed payments in the amount of 126,774 rubles, and compensation for moral damage in the amount of 50,000 rubles. In support of the claim, O. stated that he was illegally dismissed under paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code for repeated non-performance of labor duties without valid reasons.

During the judicial proceedings, it was established that the defendant had created a conciliation commission for the resolution of a collective labor dispute, and the plaintiff was included as a member of the commission. The union provided the defendant with a reasoned opinion disagreeing with O.'s dismissal; however, the defendant still terminated the labor contract. The court decided that labor legislation was violated during the plaintiff's dismissal. The claims were satisfied in full.

In another Case No. 33-19731/2024, [5] Kh. was dismissed for absenteeism, which served as the basis for a lawsuit requesting reinstatement and recovery of wages for the duration of forced absence in the amount of 212,776 rubles and compensation for moral damage in the amount of 20,000 rubles. As a justification, the plaintiff pointed out the employer's established practice of coordinating absences with a direct supervisor and submitting an application for leave without pay to that supervisor.

In addition to the established practice, the court also took into account Kh.'s participation in the conciliation commission. The decision stated that the existence of a collective labor dispute in the institution during the disputed period and the inclusion of the plaintiff as a member of the conciliation commission has legal significance for assessing the legality of the dismissal and the severity of the penalty applied. The lawsuit was satisfied in full.

The Labor Code also contains a special provision defining "guarantees for employees in connection with a strike".

If a strike is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Labor Code, an employee's participation in it cannot be considered a violation of labor discipline or grounds for terminating the labor contract.

During the strike, employees retain their place of work and position. However, since employees did not perform their labor functions during this time, the employer is exempt from the obligation to pay them wages, except for employees engaged in performing the mandatory minimum of work (services).

Employees who did not participate in the strike but were unable to perform their work due to it and who declared the start of a "downtime" in writing must be paid at a rate of at least two-thirds of their salary (base salary) in proportion to the downtime (Article 414 of the Labor Code).

Furthermore, Article 415 of the Labor Code prohibits a "lockout" — the dismissal of employees at the employer's initiative in connection with their participation in a collective labor dispute or strike.

Thus, to minimize legal risks, an employer during a collective labor dispute must evaluate its actions regarding the objectivity of its chosen disciplinary measures and the absence of a link to an employee's participation in resolving the collective dispute.

Liability of Parties to a Collective Labor Dispute

For violations committed during a collective dispute, liability is provided for each party.

Employers and (or) their representatives may be held administratively liable:

Under Article 5.32 of the CAO RF for "evading the receipt of employee demands and participation in conciliation procedures", including for failing to provide a room for holding a meeting (conference) of employees to put forward demands or creating obstacles to holding such a meeting (conference). This entails a fine ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 rubles.

Employer representatives may also be held disciplinarily liable in the form of a remark, reprimand, or dismissal for these violations (Article 416 of the Labor Code).

Evasion of participation in conciliation procedures may include refusal to create conciliation bodies or to work in them, violation of deadlines for responding to employee demands, or failure to fulfill obligations to create the necessary conditions for the operation of conciliation bodies. At the same time, as researchers of this issue correctly note,[6] in law enforcement practice, an employer's evasion of conciliation is sometimes interpreted quite broadly. For example, the fact that parties have disagreements or disagree with each other's proposals cannot be considered evasion of conciliation.

Under Article 5.33 of the CAO RF for failure to fulfill obligations under an agreement reached as a result of a conciliation procedure. This entails a fine ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 rubles.
Under Article 5.34 of the CAO RF for the dismissal of employees in connection with a collective labor dispute or a strike declaration. This entails a fine ranging from 4,000 to 5,000 rubles. Employees are subject to administrative liability for illegal strikes.
Under Article 20.26 of the CAO RF for "unauthorized termination of work or abandonment of the workplace", if such actions (inaction) are prohibited by federal law, administrative liability is provided. This entails a fine ranging from 1,000 to 1,500 rubles; for organizing such actions, the fine increases to 2,500 rubles.

Furthermore, in accordance with Article 417 of the Labor Code, employees who have started a strike or failed to terminate it on the next business day after being notified of a final court decision recognizing the strike as illegal or postponing or suspending the strike may be subjected to disciplinary action for violating labor discipline.

A representative body of employees that declared and did not terminate a strike after it was recognized as illegal must compensate the employer for losses caused by the illegal strike.

In summary, the procedures provided by law for resolving collective labor disputes are highly formalized and require significant organizational effort and knowledge of legislation. Consequently, employees often prefer to resort to methods not regulated by labor law, which are not considered mechanisms for settling collective labor disputes and deprive employees of legal means of protection.

However, in our view, the methods provided for resolving collective disputes are also not an effective way for employers to resolve labor conflicts.

____________________________

References

[1] See: https://tactum.io/results-of-social-and-labour-conflicts-in-russia-for-2024

[2] Ruling of the Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction dated September 25, 2024, No. 88-29915/2024.

[3] Decision of the Samara Regional Court dated December 5, 2023, in Case No. 3-2383/2023.

[4] Appellate Ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi dated March 10, 2025, in Case No. 33-1359/2025.

[5] Appellate Ruling of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated December 5, 2024, in Case No. 33-19731/2024.

[6] Kurennoy A.M., Legal Regulation of Collective Labor Disputes, Yustitsinform, 2010.