Employee Downtime in Russia: Legal Compliance and Judicial Practice

October 5, 2026

BRACE Law Firm ©

The employer informs the employee that downtime will commence the next day. This situation may raise questions, especially if the employee knows they have not committed any disciplinary offenses, their position is not subject to redundancy, and the company is not in bankruptcy and formally continues to operate.

Unlike other HR procedures, such as redundancy or changes in working conditions, downtime lacks detailed regulation in labor legislation. The Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Labor Code") does not contain a separate chapter or special provision providing instructions for implementing this measure. The only article dedicated to downtime establishes the payment procedure during this period (Article 157 of the Labor Code). For employers, the fundamental rules for initiating downtime are established in Rostrud Order No. 253 dated November 11, 2022, On Approving the Guidelines for Compliance with Mandatory Requirements of Labor Legislation (the "Rostrud Guidelines"). However, this document also fails to reflect the variety of disputes that arise between the employee and the organization.

Extensive judicial practice has formed regarding issues related to initiating and paying for downtime. This article examines the most pressing issues of this HR procedure using examples of decisions from courts of cassation of general jurisdiction (the "Courts of Cassation").

What is Downtime: Concept and General Characteristics

Downtime constitutes a temporary suspension of work due to economic, technological, technical, or organizational reasons (Article 72.2(3) of the Labor Code). Initiating downtime is a lawful HR measure, but an employer making such a decision must consider the following specific features:

Justifying with compelling reasons: The employer must always substantiate downtime with valid economic, technical, or organizational circumstances. Since downtime defaults to a forced measure, its causes do not directly depend on the employer's will or stem from their entrepreneurial risks.
Establishing a temporary duration: Downtime always serves as a temporary measure. The employer cannot announce it for an indefinite period; they must record a specific end date. The law does not specify a minimum or maximum duration for downtime. The employer may extend the downtime period if reasons persist, but this state cannot last indefinitely.
Authorizing workplace presence: The employee remains at the workplace during downtime (by default), but the employer may authorize absence from work during this period. Both options are lawful; the employer establishes the attendance or absence regime during downtime.
Classifying the period correctly: The downtime period constitutes neither working time nor rest time.
Calculating compensation: The employer calculates downtime payment according to special rules and depends on the reasons and circumstances of the downtime initiation. This payment does not constitute remuneration for labor or payment for rest time, but it qualifies as a compensatory payment.
Withholding special preferences: Employees do not receive any preferences or benefits related to family status, position, or health condition during downtime. This distinguishes downtime from other HR procedures, such as redundancy.
Eliminating reassignment obligations: Downtime does not obligate the employer to offer the employee all vacant positions. This is another difference between downtime and redundancy or changing working conditions.[1]
Bearing the burden of proof: The employer bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of initiating downtime in court (Paragraph 17 of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Plenum Resolution No. 2 dated March 17, 2004, On the Application by the Courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (the "Resolution No. 2")).

Grounds for Initiating Downtime

The reasons for initiating downtime are critical, as they determine the amount of employee compensation. Depending on the reasons and circumstances, practice identifies three types of downtime:

downtime due to the employer's fault;
downtime due to reasons beyond the control of the employee and the employer;
downtime due to the employee's fault.

The law lacks clear criteria for determining the employer's fault, nor does it provide an exhaustive list of examples. The court evaluates the circumstances individually in each specific case.

Downtime due to the employer's fault does not mean the organization intentionally committed culpable actions aimed at suspending employees from work. The employer's fault exists in all cases where entrepreneurial risks, commercial activities, or managerial decisions regarding organizational or technological changes within the company cause the downtime. It is essential to understand that downtime designated as "due to the employer's fault", does not constitute an unlawful act; it remains a lawful HR measure. The term "fault" merely indicates the causes of the downtime and determines the payment amount.

The employer may initiate downtime due to their fault because of a lack of orders, decreased revenue volumes, reduced production volumes, lack of materials or raw materials, disconnection of facilities from energy resources, and other circumstances. This approach applies regardless of the employer's ownership form, covering both commercial organizations and state institutions.

For instance, a transport institution announced downtime for bus drivers due to a lack of passenger transportation orders for buses of specific dimensions. The court recognized the initiation of downtime due to the employer's fault, justified by economic reasons, as lawful.[2]

The repair of buildings and premises where the work process occurs often serves as grounds for downtime. Such situations are common, leading to a whole category of judicial disputes regarding downtime caused by repairs. The Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation clarified in Letter No. 14-1/OOG-4375 dated May 24, 2018, that if repairs are planned, the time spent conducting them can qualify as downtime due to the employer's fault. Judicial instances also hold a clear position: planned routine or capital repairs resulting in downtime qualify as downtime due to the employer's fault. If the repair stems from other reasons (e.g., a natural disaster or emergency), the court will examine each situation individually to determine the presence of fault.

A series of cases reviewed by the Sixth Court of Cassation based on a lawsuit by the Prosecutor of the Orenburg Region serves as an example. Kindergarten employees submitted a collective complaint to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor conducted an inspection and discovered that the employer placed the employees on downtime due to the need for capital repairs to the building. The facility belonged to municipal property, owned by the district administration, which bore the responsibility for maintaining the building. The administration issued a resolution temporarily suspending the kindergarten's operations and recommended paying employees at least 2/3 of their tariff rate (base salary), calculated in proportion to the downtime. Guided by this resolution, the kindergarten institution issued a downtime order, but simultaneously transferred some employees to temporary work in another kindergarten. The prosecutor argued that the downtime occurred due to the employer's fault; therefore, the employer should calculate the payment at no less than 2/3 of the average earnings, rather than the tariff rate or base salary. The administration attempted to challenge the decision, claiming that the property owner (the administration itself) initiated the repairs, and the kindergarten director did not request the repairs from the administration, thus absolving the direct employer of fault. The court acknowledged the fact of downtime due to the employer's fault. The administration made the decision to suspend operations, and the kindergarten institution acted as the Customer under the contract for the building's capital repair. Thus, the joint, coordinated actions of the owner and the institution to suspend operations for repairs led to the downtime. Capital repairs do not constitute unforeseen circumstances, such as emergencies, natural disasters, and similar causes, and do not qualify as circumstances beyond the employer's control. The court separately addressed the issue of employees temporarily transferred to other work. These employees did not qualify for downtime payment equal to 2/3 of their average earnings because they performed labor activities for which they received payment. However, some employees refused this transfer. Based on this, the employer assumed they were entirely ineligible for downtime payment. The court disagreed with this approach. The employer may temporarily transfer an employee to another employer due to work suspension only with the employee's consent; the lack of such consent cannot deprive the employee of the right to downtime payment. Therefore, employees who refused to temporarily transfer to another institution also held the right to receive 2/3 of their average salary for the entire downtime period. The court ordered the institution to pay statutory compensation for moral damage of 500 rubles to each employee placed on downtime.[3]

Downtime due to the employer's fault includes situations where an employee refuses to perform work when a danger to their life and health arises, and the employer cannot provide alternative work due to objective reasons (Article 216.1(4)-(5) of the Labor Code).

Downtime due to reasons beyond the control of the employee and the employer arises from extraordinary circumstances, such as accidents or natural disasters. Rostrud categorizes man-made disasters, floods, famine, earthquakes, epidemics, or epizootics as such reasons (Section IV of the Rostrud Guidelines).

For example, an avian flu outbreak at a poultry farm qualified as downtime caused by reasons beyond the control of the employee and employer.[4]

The revocation of a license to conduct banking operations for a credit or insurance organization, as well as the cancellation of a license for a non-state pension fund, qualifies as downtime beyond the parties' control (Section IV of the Rostrud Guidelines).

The court may reclassify the justification for initiating downtime if it deems it unfounded. This means the court can reclassify downtime designated as "due to the employer's fault", into downtime due to reasons beyond the control of the employee and employer, and vice versa.

A well-known example involves a 2023 fire at the LLC Ferroni-Tolyatti facility. The fire caused a temporary suspension of the organization's work and the initiation of downtime due to reasons beyond the parties' control, with payment at 2/3 of the tariff rate (base salary). The prosecutor's office declared the order unlawful and demanded its cancellation. The court classified the situation as downtime due to the employer's fault and ordered the recalculation of employee compensation.[5]

Downtime due to the employee's fault constitutes the employee's absence from the workplace or failure to perform labor functions for subjective (typically inexcusable) reasons. Downtime due to the employee's fault is not subject to payment. Notably, this situation itself does not constitute downtime in the regulatory sense, as the employer's volitional decision is absent, and the employer does not issue an order initiating downtime. The initiative to abstain from performing labor functions lies solely with the employee. Therefore, the employer documents such "downtime" using other records: an act of absence from the workplace or an order on suspension from work. Occasionally, employees who fail to perform labor functions due to their own fault appeal to the court and demand downtime payment.

For example, an employee failed to appear at work for an extended period and did not immediately retrieve her work record book even after dismissal. The court sided with the employer because the employee remained absent from the workplace on her own initiative, and the employer committed no unlawful actions. The court found no grounds to recognize paid downtime.[6]

Another example is the Eighth Court of Cassation's decision regarding an assembler's unlawful dismissal. The employer terminated the employee for truancy, but the court ruled the dismissal unlawful and awarded the plaintiff average earnings for the period of forced absence (September - October 2023) pursuant to Article 394(2) of the Labor Code. The employee also claimed downtime payment for an additional period, starting from November 2022 until the dismissal date. The court denied the downtime payment for the following reasons. During the specified period, the employee did not report to work and made no attempts to do so. Simultaneously, the employer conducted economic activities during the disputed period, did not announce a suspension of operations, did not suspend the assembler from work, and did not declare downtime. The court concluded that no grounds existed to recover downtime payment. In this case, the plaintiff's failure to perform labor duties occurred due to his own fault, as he failed to appear at work starting in November 2022. Under these circumstances, the situation constituted downtime due to the employee's fault, which is not subject to payment.[7]

If an employee cannot perform their work due to a strike in which they did not participate, and they submit a written declaration initiating downtime in connection with this, the situation qualifies as downtime not due to the employee's fault (Section IV of the Rostrud Guidelines).

The period during which creative workers remain unengaged does not constitute downtime. If mass media personnel, cinematography organizations, theaters, theatrical and concert organizations, or circuses do not perform or participate in creating and performing works, this time does not qualify as downtime and is compensated according to the specific employment contract (Section I of the Rostrud Guidelines).

Formalizing the Downtime Procedure

Sections II and III of the Rostrud Guidelines outline the employer's actions when initiating downtime.

First, the employer must take all measures within their control to terminate the downtime and resume the normal operation of the work process.

Second, the employer must issue an order or directive initiating downtime. Employees must acknowledge this order against their signature.

The order initiating downtime must contain the following information:

the reason for the downtime (specific economic, technical, technological, or organizational circumstances);
whose fault caused the downtime (the employer's fault, or circumstances beyond the control of the employee or employer);
the exact start and end date and time of the downtime;
the titles and names of the employees subject to the downtime;
the procedure and amount of payment for the downtime period;
the location of the employees during the downtime (authorization to be absent or mandatory presence at the workplace).

Since downtime constitutes a forced measure and frequently stems from unforeseen circumstances, the law does not require providing the employee with advance notice of the initiation order. In this regard, downtime differs from HR procedures like redundancy or changes to essential working conditions, which require a two-month advance notice.

Third, the employer must record the downtime in the timesheets. Downtime is indicated by the numeric code "31" or the alphabetic code "RP".

Fourth, within 3 business days from the date of issuing the downtime order, the employer must notify the employment service authorities in writing (Article 53 of Federal Law No. 565-FZ dated December 12, 2023, On Employment of the Population in the Russian Federation).

Fifth, the employer may transfer the employee to another job during the downtime. Unlike redundancy, the employer is not obligated to offer employees all available vacancies during downtime, but they may do so to maintain the employee's normal earnings.

The law establishes specific cases when an employer can transfer an employee to another job during downtime. If a natural or man-made disaster, industrial accident, workplace accident, fire, flood, famine, earthquake, epidemic, or epizootic, or any exceptional cases threatening the life or normal living conditions of the entire population or a part thereof cause the downtime, the employer may transfer the employee for up to 1 month to work not stipulated by the employment contract (Article 72.2(3) of the Labor Code, Section III of the Rostrud Guidelines). However, transferring an employee to a job requiring lower qualifications is permissible only with the employee's written consent.

In other downtime scenarios, the employer may transfer the employee to another job only with their consent.

Downtime Compensation

Article 157 of the Labor Code establishes the downtime payment procedure. The payment amount depends on the circumstances and reasons for the downtime:

downtime due to the employer's fault requires payment of at least 2/3 (two-thirds) of the average salary;
downtime due to reasons beyond the control of the employer and the employee requires payment of at least 2/3 (two-thirds) of the tariff rate or base salary, calculated in proportion to the downtime duration;
downtime due to the employee's fault is not subject to payment.

Notably, the law merely establishes a minimum threshold for downtime payment – no less than 2/3 of the average earnings or tariff rate (base salary). This means the employer has the right, at their discretion, to establish a higher payment for the downtime period. To avoid litigation risks, employers occasionally compensate downtime at the rate of average earnings.

The tariff rate or base salary constitutes the base portion of the wage, to which various multiplying coefficients, as well as incentive and bonus payments, are added. Therefore, payment for downtime due to the employer's fault amounts to a larger sum than payment for downtime caused by circumstances beyond the parties' control.

Article 139 of the Labor Code and Russian Federation Government Resolution No. 540 dated April 24, 2025, On the Specifics of the Procedure for Calculating the Average Wage (the "Resolution No. 540"), set forth the rules for calculating average earnings.

When calculating the average salary, the employer must consider all types of payments applicable to the given employee, regardless of the funding sources, including (Paragraph 2 of the Resolution No. 540):

wages accrued to the employee based on tariff rates or base salaries;
bonuses, monetary incentives, and rewards provided by the employer's compensation system;
wages accrued based on piece-rate pricing;
wages accrued as a percentage of revenue from the sale of products (performance of work, provision of services), or as commission remuneration;
wages issued in non-monetary form;
monetary remuneration paid to state and municipal civil servants, as well as members of electoral commissions;
fees paid to art sector employees (e.g., editorial boards or mass media), as well as author's royalties;
wages for overtime teaching work, and remuneration for performing the duties of a homeroom teacher;
supplements and allowances (e.g., for professional mastery, class rank, length of service or work experience, foreign language proficiency, handling state secrets, combining professions (positions) or expanding service areas, increasing the volume of work performed, and others);
payments related to working conditions (regional coefficients and allowances);
additional payments for heavy work or work with harmful and dangerous conditions, night shifts, weekends and non-working holidays, and overtime pay;
other types of payments utilized within the specific organization.

The employer accounts for bonuses and monetary incentives when calculating average earnings using a special procedure (Paragraph 15 of the Resolution No. 540):

monthly bonuses, monetary incentives, and rewards are accounted for based on amounts actually accrued during the settlement period, but no more than one payment per indicator for each month of the settlement period;
if the settlement period exceeds one month, they are accounted for based on amounts actually accrued during the settlement period for each indicator, provided they were accrued for a period not exceeding the settlement period, and in the amount of the monthly portion for each month of the settlement period if the duration of the accrual period exceeds the settlement period;
remuneration based on annual performance results, lump-sum remuneration for length of service (work experience), and other annual rewards accrued for the calendar year preceding the event.

If the employee did not fully work the settlement period, the employer accounts for bonuses, monetary incentives, and rewards proportionally to the time worked. These funds will be factored into the average earnings.

Social payments (such as financial assistance, payment for meals, travel, training, utility services, or recreation) are excluded from the calculation of average earnings.

Regardless of the work regime, the employer calculates average earnings based on the actually accrued wages and actually worked time over the 12 calendar months preceding the period during which the employee retains their average wage. A calendar month constitutes the period from the 1st to the 30th/31st day of the corresponding month inclusive (Paragraph 4 of the Resolution No. 540).

The average wage calculation relies on the average daily earnings, while systems employing summarized accounting of working time utilize the average hourly earnings as the baseline.

If the organization increased employee salaries or tariff rates (i.e., conducted indexation) during the downtime, the employer factors this into the average earnings calculation (Paragraph 16 of the Resolution No. 540).

The correlation between downtime payment and the minimum wage (the "Minimum Wage") remains a contentious issue. By law, an employee's average earnings cannot fall below the Minimum Wage (Article 133 of the Labor Code, Paragraph 18 of the Resolution No. 540). However, this rule applies when the employee actually performed their labor function. During downtime, the employee does not execute their labor function, and the working time standard remains unfulfilled. One can classify downtime payment not as wages, but as a guaranteed compensatory payment. Furthermore, downtime compensation constitutes only 2/3 of the average earnings or tariff rate (base salary). Therefore, downtime payment may fall below the Minimum Wage limit.[8]

Crucially, if the court determines that the employer processed the downtime payment incorrectly (e.g., delayed payment, underpayment, or total non-payment), the employer faces material liability under Article 236 of the Labor Code. The employer must accrue interest on the unpaid or delayed amount at a rate of no less than 1/150 of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation key rate effective at that time. Interest accrues for each day of delay, starting from the day following the scheduled payment date up to and including the date of actual settlement. Consequently, when an employee disputes the downtime payment amount, they concurrently file a claim for late payment penalties alongside the primary monetary demand.

Forced Absence vs. Downtime

One must distinguish downtime from another phenomenon – forced absence.

The law lacks a definition for the term "forced absence". In enforcement practice, this term describes situations where the employee lost the opportunity to work due to the employer's unlawful actions. Article 234 of the Labor Code lists examples of such cases:

unlawful suspension of the employee from work;
unlawful dismissal of the employee;
unlawful transfer to another job;
failure to execute or untimely execution of a decision by a labor dispute resolution body or a state legal labor inspector to reinstate the employee to their previous job;
delayed issuance of the employee's work record book, failure to provide work activity records, or entry of an incorrect or non-compliant dismissal reason formulation into the work record book.

As demonstrated, this list omits downtime. However, unlawful initiation of downtime actually serves as one of the most common causes of forced absence. The principle of distinguishing between downtime and forced absence relies precisely on the presence of lawful grounds for initiating downtime. If the employer possessed economic, technological, technical, or organizational reasons, the court will recognize the downtime as lawful, regardless of whether it arose from the employer's fault or independent causes. Such downtime does not constitute forced absence. Conversely, if the court deems the initiation of downtime unlawful, it classifies the situation as forced absence.

The payment procedure for forced absence differs from downtime compensation. During forced absence, the employer pays the employee their full average earnings (Article 394(2) of the Labor Code). Thus, if an employer unlawfully initiates downtime for an employee, paying 2/3 of the tariff rate or average earnings, and the court subsequently recognizes this as forced absence, the employer must pay the employee the shortfall.

From an economic standpoint, the employer benefits more from formalizing downtime (even with the designation "due to the employer's fault",). Driven by economic reasons, employees dissatisfied with downtime attempt to challenge it and reclassify it as forced absence. Occasionally, plaintiffs conflate downtime with forced absence in their lawsuits, substituting one concept for the other. In any event, the court investigates the case circumstances and determines the applicable legal provisions.

A prime example is a case before the Ninth Court of Cassation based on an employee's lawsuit against the Srednekanskaya Hydroelectric Power Plant. The plaintiff worked as a crusher and faced downtime, while his colleagues continued to perform their functions and work normally. Concrete work proceeded at the plant facilities, which remained impossible without crushing raw materials. The employee argued that the organization's actions bore a discriminatory nature designed to force his resignation, as the downtime order targeted him exclusively. The employee demanded the court recognize the downtime period as working time and order payment based on average earnings (i.e., applying forced absence rules). The court upheld the employee's claims, considering the following circumstances: the employer issued the order for a single employee, crushing work occurred during the disputed period, the court identified no economic, technical, or organizational reasons for suspending work, and the employer failed to substantiate its position with evidence. In this situation, the employer lacked lawful grounds for initiating downtime.[9]

Reorganizational changes within a company do not automatically constitute grounds for initiating downtime. A Second Court of Cassation decision regarding a lawsuit against an employer within the Gazprom group of companies illustrates this. A woman worked as a gas station site manager and, upon returning from maternity leave, discovered her position had transformed into a regional manager role. The employer denied her access to work and issued a downtime order. The employee challenged the order, demanding its cancellation, payment for forced absence, and moral damage compensation. The court ruled this downtime unjustified, noting that an employer's inability to provide an employee with a workplace and work does not constitute grounds for downtime. The organization failed to present any compelling economic, technical, or organizational reasons for the downtime. Consequently, the court classified the situation as forced absence, granting the employee the right to payment based on average earnings, compensation for delayed payment under Article 236 of the Labor Code, and moral damage recovery.[10]

Instances occur where an employee petitions the court using the phrasing "on payment for downtime," despite the employer never issuing a downtime order, and the situation actually representing forced absence. This sometimes results in erroneous calculations of lawsuit claims, as the plaintiff demands a payout of 2/3 of the average earnings instead of the full average earnings.

A Third Court of Cassation case serves as an example. An airline employee filed a lawsuit regarding an unlawful redundancy. The proceedings revealed that the employer created new structural subdivisions and quietly transferred employees from other departments into them. The employer bypassed the procedure for determining preferential retention rights, unilaterally deciding whom to transfer to the newly formed branch. Consequently, the employer dismissed the flight attendant under Article 81(1)(2) of the Labor Code (redundancy of staff or headcount) without offering her vacant positions. The court found that the employer violated the employee dismissal procedure and ordered the flight attendant's reinstatement. Because the court classified the situation as forced absence, she received payment based on her average earnings for the disputed period. However, the employee also demanded additional downtime compensation and a recalculation of her severance pay. The court rejected the downtime claims. First, the employer did not issue a downtime order, meaning no downtime was initiated for the employee. Second, the employer executed staff redundancy measures, and Chapter 27 of the Labor Code, rather than Article 157, governs the guarantees and compensations for such procedures.[11]

Another striking example involves a Ninth Court of Cassation decision on a crane operator's lawsuit against an unscrupulous employer. Following the completion of construction work at the site, the employer dismantled the tower crane he operated. The organization failed to provide the employee with alternative work. The employer ceased paying wages from that moment and issued no downtime order. As a result, the crane operator stopped reporting to work, and the employer exploited this by classifying his behavior as truancy. The court classified the situation as forced absence, finding no grounds to apply downtime payment rules. First, the employer never issued a downtime order. Second, the employer failed to prove the existence of economic, technological, technical, or organizational reasons for declaring downtime. Under these circumstances, the employer must calculate payment based on average earnings. However, the plaintiff filed a claim seeking 2/3 of average earnings, and the court of first instance fully granted this specific demand. The appellate and cassation courts upheld this calculation on procedural grounds: the employee himself failed to request a recalculation during the appeal. Consequently, the court ordered the organization to pay compensation for the time of forced absence due to the employer's fault, late payment penalties, and moral damage compensation.[12]

Another scenario where one struggles to distinguish downtime from forced absence involves the inability to work because the employer failed to provide the employee with necessary collective and personal protective equipment (Article 216.1, Paragraph 6 of the Labor Code). Article 216.1 uses the term "downtime", but this situation does not genuinely qualify as downtime. First, the employer issues an order for temporary suspension from work, rather than a downtime initiation order. Second, the employer compensates the forced suspension period at the rate of average earnings, applying the forced absence rules rather than Article 157 of the Labor Code. Therefore, classifying such an event as forced absence is more legally accurate.

Thus, forced absence and downtime represent fundamentally different situations:

Encompassing a broader scope: Forced absence covers numerous other instances beyond unlawful downtime (e.g., unlawful dismissal, suspension from work);
Determining legality: If the court deems the downtime unlawful, it classifies it as forced absence. If the employer initiated downtime justifiably (including with the "due to the employer's fault", designation), it does not constitute forced absence;
Executing cancellation requirements: If the court recognizes downtime as forced absence, the employer must cancel the downtime order and pay (or supplement) compensation for the entire absence period based on average earnings, plus Article 236 Labor Code interest on the awarded amount for the delay;
Correcting claim structures: If the employer unlawfully deprived the employee of the opportunity to work but issued no downtime order, the plaintiff must claim forced absence, not downtime payment. Courts hold that initiating downtime falls under the employer's managerial authority, and absent such an order, the court lacks grounds to compel the organization to initiate and pay for downtime (even if reasons for downtime exist). In this scenario, the employer will have to pay for forced absence.

Downtime Following Reinstatement: Evaluating Violations

An employer's decision to place a recently reinstated employee on downtime remains a classic cause for litigation. The situation itself appears provocative – a reinstatement implies an unlawful dismissal. Under such circumstances, an employer may harbor natural dissatisfaction and formalize unmotivated downtime. Conversely, an employee who experiences reinstatement followed immediately by downtime often perceives this as an intentional infringement of their rights and coercion to resign. Therefore, the court investigates the fairness and validity of the employer's decision.

One must acknowledge that initiating downtime for a reinstated employee inherently raises suspicions and serves as a red flag requiring special scrutiny during dispute resolution. For instance, the Seventh Court of Cassation remanded a case for a new trial because the appellate court ignored a crucial fact: the employer issued the downtime orders subsequent to the employee's reinstatement.[13]

The Second Court of Cassation reviewed an employee's lawsuit against an institution regarding an unlawful downtime declaration. The employer previously dismissed the employee due to redundancy but reinstated him following a court decision. Several months post-reinstatement, the employer placed the employee on downtime, citing a lack of funding for the Head of the Material and Technical Support Sector position in the staffing table. The employer paid the downtime at 2/3 of the average earnings. The employee challenged the downtime as unlawful, demanding the court classify it as forced absence with corresponding compensation for lost earnings. The court ruled that an employer's inability, due to organizational reasons, to provide a reinstated, unlawfully dismissed employee with a workplace and the work stipulated by their pre-dismissal employment contract does not constitute grounds for downtime. Furthermore, the court determined the employer failed to properly execute the reinstatement judgment; although the employer canceled the unlawful dismissal order, they practically denied the employee access to work. The court deemed the downtime unlawful and ordered the employer to pay the shortfall, representing the difference between the average earnings and the 2/3 average earnings amount actually disbursed.[14]

Another example involves a lawsuit by regional clinic employees concerning unlawful downtime initiation. The employer dismissed a department head and a senior nurse due to redundancy, but the court ordered their reinstatement. However, immediately after issuing the reinstatement order, the employer issued a downtime order, arguing the staffing table lacked the corresponding position allocations. The employees challenged the downtime, highlighting that the clinic applied this decision solely to them while continuing normal operations. The court found no economic, technological, technical, or organizational reasons for initiating the downtime. The clinic operated routinely. The court construed the hospital administration's actions as intentional evasion of executing the reinstatement judgment and an abuse of rights by the employer. Labor law considers the employee the economically weaker party, existing in material and organizational dependence on the employer. The court satisfied the employees' claims and declared the downtime unlawful.[15]

Frequently, an employer who unlawfully dismisses an employee immediately alters the organizational structure, changes job responsibilities, and executes other personnel reshuffles. Consequently, upon successfully concluding the litigation, the reinstated employee discovers their position and functions no longer exist, with tasks reassigned among colleagues. Based on this, the employer issues a perfunctory reinstatement order followed by a second order initiating downtime. Courts classify such actions as an abuse of rights and forced absence.

A case where an employer unfairly dismissed an employee for truancy, only for the court to later order her reinstatement, illustrates this. The employer issued a reinstatement order and immediately placed her on downtime, paying 2/3 of her average earnings. The employee contested the order, seeking to reclassify the downtime as forced absence. The court determined the employer lacked valid reasons for downtime. Organizational difficulties and the inability to immediately supply a reinstated, unlawfully dismissed employee with a workplace and their pre-dismissal duties do not justify initiating downtime. Thus, the employer violated the employee's rights and initiated the downtime unlawfully.[16]

However, one must note that initiating downtime post-reinstatement does not inherently constitute a violation. The law contains no prohibition against applying these HR procedures concurrently. The court will support the employer if compelling objective reasons motivate and justify the downtime decision. The company must prove these represent necessary HR measures unmotivated by a desire to terminate a specific employee.

For instance, the Seventh Court of Cassation rejected an employee's claim to invalidate a downtime period. The plaintiff worked as a mechanic in a service center, faced downtime, and subsequently lost his job due to redundancy. A court order reinstated him, but the day after issuing the reinstatement order, the employer declared downtime for him again. The employee deemed these actions unlawful and sued. The proceedings revealed the employer was a company with foreign participation. In response to economic restrictions imposed in February-March 2022 and the subsequent deterioration of the general economic climate, company management introduced additional cost-control measures to preserve profitability and market position. This included a decision to optimize personnel costs and close all previously opened, unfilled vacancies. This directive remained active when the employer issued the contested orders. The disruption of logistical supply chains for equipment and components led to negative economic and organizational consequences, including a reduction in equipment requiring servicing and repair. The court sided with the employer, attributing the downtime to sanctions against Russia and a diminished workload. The court also validated the staff redundancy measures. Crucially, the court emphasized that imposing downtime immediately after reinstatement does not automatically constitute an infringement. The organization complied with the reinstatement judgment, granted the employee access to work, but extended the downtime initially imposed prior to his dismissal. Continuing this pre-existing downtime after reinstatement did not violate the employee's rights.[17]

In another instance, a design engineer reinstated by a court order contested a subsequent downtime period. The employer executed the court judgment but later placed the employee on downtime, citing a lack of work volume corresponding to the Lead Design Engineer job description. The court supported the employer based on the case specifics. The enterprise experienced a significant decline in work and services due to economic factors, hindering full utilization of production capacity. An employer retains the discretion to initiate downtime for the entire workforce or individual employees. This decision falls under the organization's financial and economic operations, guided by economic expediency. Therefore, a court may only intervene in these matters if the employer clearly abuses their rights. The employer calculated downtime payment according to Article 157 of the Labor Code, meaning the employee's rights and interests remained intact.[18]

The Sixth Court of Cassation vindicated an overriding management company that initiated downtime for an employee previously reinstated by court order. Following reinstatement, the employer declared downtime due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee and employer, paying 2/3 of the base salary. The employee challenged this decision, interpreting the company's actions as a deliberate refusal to provide work. However, the court found the organization lacked premises to conduct apartment building management activities and had lost its license. The staffing table retained only one allocation for the Director position. The court recognized these facts as lawful grounds for downtime but ordered the employer to amend the justification to "due to the employer's fault", and calculate payment at 2/3 of the average earnings.[19]

Navigating Downtime During Redundancy Proceedings

Another common scenario where downtime faces legal challenges involves its initiation during staff redundancy proceedings. The combination of these HR measures invariably raises doubts and demands scrutiny regarding lawfulness.

Employers frequently place an employee on downtime after issuing a redundancy notice. The period leading up to the redundancy date spans at least two months, and the employer cannot always provide work. By default, courts deem such actions unlawful because downtime inherently serves as a temporary measure. If downtime persists until the redundancy dismissal, it lacks this temporary characteristic, even if the anticipated redundancy date serves as the downtime's end date. The employer knows in advance they cannot provide future work and harbors no intention of doing so. During litigation, employers argue that the law does not explicitly prohibit concurrent downtime and redundancy. However, these arguments fall short. If a company fails to present compelling organizational, technical, technological, or economic grounds for initiating downtime during the redundancy period, the court will declare the decision unlawful.[20]

However, an employer occasionally successfully defends such an HR decision. For instance, a credit organization announced downtime for an employee while simultaneously initiating redundancy proceedings. The court discovered the employer lost its license to conduct banking operations. Consequently, the company could not provide work, triggering simultaneous downtime and redundancy decisions. The court found no violations in these actions. Lacking a license, the employee could not execute their job description duties, leaving the employer with no alternative.[21]

A Third Court of Cassation decision concerning an IT department head's lawsuit against their employer provides another example. The company issued a redundancy notice and declared downtime several days later. The court validated these actions. The employer could not supply work due to economic reasons and dismissed several other employees during the redundancy (indicating the procedure did not target a specific employee). The law does not forbid combining redundancy with downtime initiation.[22]

Medical Examinations vs. Downtime

Disputes over payments related to completing (or failing to complete) medical examinations constitute a separate branch of judicial practice. Parties frequently use the term "downtime", although downtime initiation and payment rules rarely apply here.

One must note that undergoing a medical examination does not intrinsically constitute downtime.

Specific employee categories must mandatorily undergo preliminary (upon hiring) and periodic (during employment) medical examinations or psychiatric evaluations, as well as extraordinary medical examinations (Article 215 of the Labor Code). The employer must independently organize these examinations using their own funds (Article 214 of the Labor Code). This requires the company to execute a contract with a licensed medical organization, develop and approve an examination schedule with the clinic, and issue the employee a referral. The employer has no right to demand the employee find a clinic independently or pay for the examination.

During such a medical examination or psychiatric evaluation, the employee retains their workplace and average earnings (Article 185 of the Labor Code).

If an employee fails to complete a mandatory medical examination or psychiatric evaluation, the employer must suspend them from work (Article 76(1) of the Labor Code). The employer must formalize this suspension regardless of who bears the fault for the missed examination – the employee or the employer. The suspension remains effective until the employee obtains the necessary medical clearances. Payment during the suspension depends on whose fault caused the missed examination. If the employee bears the fault, the employer accrues no payment. If the employee holds no fault for missing the examination, the employer compensates the entire suspension period as downtime (Article 76(3) of the Labor Code).

In these scenarios, parties frequently conflate concepts and incorrectly apply downtime provisions:

conflating the medical examination period with downtime or forced absence;
conflating the work suspension period due to an incomplete medical examination with forced absence or downtime due to the employer's fault;
erroneously applying downtime or forced absence payment rules to compensate the medical examination period;
erroneously applying forced absence payment rules or medical examination time rules to compensate the work suspension caused by the lack of a medical examination.

Let us examine these nuances using judicial practice examples.

The Ninth Court of Cassation reviewed a lawsuit by an employee demanding payment for forced absence. The employer suspended him because he failed to pass a medical examination. The employer accrued no wages during the suspension period. The court of first instance upheld the claims, invalidated the employer's order, and awarded average earnings for the suspension period, alongside moral damage compensation. The appellate instance modified this judgment regarding the calculation of payment for the disputed period. The employee missed the mandatory medical examination not through his own fault, but due to the employer's inadequate organization of the process. Therefore, the employer's order remained lawful only regarding the fact of suspension, but unlawful regarding the payment calculation. However, the court must classify the suspension period as downtime due to the employer's fault, not forced absence. Consequently, the employer must calculate payment not based on average earnings, but under Article 157(1) of the Labor Code, amounting to no less than 2/3 of the employee's average wage.[23]

In another instance, a female employee failed a medical examination and faced suspension without pay. The employer argued the employee hid her medical record book copy and intentionally evaded the examination to unjustly enrich herself at the employer's expense during the forced absence period. Evidence revealed the employee failed the examination due to missing laboratory tests, which she had completed, but the employer lost them along with her medical record book. The court ruled that upon losing the medical record book containing laboratory data, the employer had a duty to organize an extraordinary examination. Instead, the employer shifted this responsibility to the employee without issuing a referral for additional medical tests. Under these conditions, the work suspension lacked justification, and the court classified the situation as forced absence. The employer must calculate payment based on Article 234 of the Labor Code (average earnings). The employer objected, citing Article 76(3) of the Labor Code concerning downtime payment, and argued for calculation under Article 157. The court rejected these arguments, stating that in this scenario, the court must apply Article 155(1) and Article 234 of the Labor Code. When a failure to fulfill labor standards or execute labor duties occurs due to the employer's fault, the employer must pay wages at a rate no lower than the average earnings, calculated proportionally to the actual time worked.[24]

One must not confuse the medical examination period with downtime – these periods carry different legal classifications and payment procedures. A railway company conductor's lawsuit regarding medical certification payouts illustrates this. The employee missed a mandatory medical examination and faced suspension without pay. The employer also withheld wages during the medical examination period. The court declared the employer's actions unlawful. The employer must compensate the medical examination time based on average earnings under Article 185 of the Labor Code, and this period does not constitute downtime. Conversely, the employer pays for the work suspension period as downtime under Article 157 of the Labor Code.[25]

Thus, one must distinguish situations involving medical examinations from "classic" downtime:

Delineating examination time: The time allocated for an employee to undergo a medical examination constitutes neither downtime nor forced absence. The employer must compensate it based on average earnings, as governed by a specific provision – Article 185 of the Labor Code;
Executing proper suspension: Suspension from work due to a missed medical examination does not constitute forced absence. The employer must execute such a suspension regardless of whose fault caused the missed medical check. However, classifying this time as downtime remains legally imprecise, as no economic, organizational, or technical reasons for downtime exist. The employer issues an order designated "suspend from work", not "initiate downtime". In this scenario, downtime provisions apply solely to payment calculation, governed by Article 157 of the Labor Code, contingent upon whether the employee or the employer bears the fault for the missed medical examination.

Impact of Work Regime and Format on Downtime Procedures

Downtime regulations apply equally to all forms of employment relationships, regardless of the work regime and schedule. The employer must compensate downtime if an employee works a shift schedule, flexible working hours, or under summarized working time conditions. These factors solely influence the specific calculation of the employee's compensation, not the guarantee of their rights.

Even remote work arrangements do not negate the general rules for initiating downtime. Labor legislation fully applies to remote workers (Article 312.1(3) of the Labor Code). This means an employer may initiate downtime for a remote employee given justified grounds, with compensation following standard rules.

The Kemerovo Regional Court examined a dispute between a commercial organization and a remote employee. This dispute followed previous litigation: the employer previously terminated the employee "for cause", (for violating labor duties), but the court ordered reinstatement. Following reinstatement, the employer issued new orders – assigning a business trip and declaring downtime. The proceedings revealed the employer failed to provide the employee with necessary technical equipment. The courts noted that providing necessary equipment and software/hardware remains the employer's obligation, and failing this duty does not justify downtime. Consequently, the court deemed the downtime baseless and unlawful, ordering the employer to calculate additional back pay based on average earnings.[26]

The work format can influence the specific nature and challenges of labor disputes regarding downtime.

For instance, fly-in fly-out (FIFO) work constitutes a specialized labor process occurring outside the employees' permanent residence (Article 297 of the Labor Code). The employee cannot return to their permanent residence daily. Employers typically deploy the FIFO method in construction, repair, or reconstruction projects in uninhabited, remote areas, or regions with severe natural conditions. During work periods and inter-shift rest, FIFO workers reside in specially constructed camps, adapted dormitories, or living quarters. The employer covers accommodation costs.

In FIFO work, disputes frequently stem from mutual misunderstandings regarding the resumption of work after a break. Courts resolve these issues based on the specific employment contract terms.

For example, the Sixth Court of Cassation dismissed an employee's claim to classify a denial of access to a FIFO shift as downtime due to the employer's fault. The female employee did not receive a regular call to work and construed this as the employer's deliberate evasion of obligations. She received no wages. The court determined that under the employment contract, the employee must notify the employer of her intent to report for a FIFO shift at least one week in advance. The employee sent no such notification, leading the employer to cancel her transportation to the site and interpret her silence as a refusal to work. The employee failed to substantiate her intent to work and did not appear at the worksite. The court rejected the claims and declined to classify the situation as downtime due to the employer's fault.[27]

However, in a similar dispute reviewed by the Sixth Court of Cassation, the court supported the employee. A crane operator completed two FIFO shifts, after which the employer ceased contact and issued no work summons. The employee argued that from that moment, the employer forced him into downtime, warranting employer compensation. The court concluded the situation constituted forced downtime due to the employer's fault, entitling the employee to payment.[28]

Moral Damage Compensation for Downtime Violations

Labor legislation provides concise regulations regarding moral damage recovery. Consequently, courts apply the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the "Civil Code"), Resolution No. 2, and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Plenum Resolution No. 33 dated November 15, 2022, On the Practice of Application by Courts of Provisions on Moral Damage Compensation (the "Resolution No. 33").

If an employer's actions violate the law, the employer compensates moral damage monetarily based on a mutual agreement, or absent one, by a court judgment (Article 237 of the Labor Code). The employer compensates moral damage for any unlawful actions or omissions, including infringements on the employee's property rights (e.g., delayed payments) (Paragraph 63 of the Resolution No. 2, Paragraph 46 of the Resolution No. 33).

Downtime disputes invariably feature a claim for moral damage recovery. If a court rules the downtime initiation unlawful, identifies violations in payment timelines or procedures, or detects any other infringement of the employee's interests, it will award moral damage compensation.

Moral damage encompasses physical or mental suffering caused by actions violating personal non-property or property rights, or encroaching upon intangible benefits belonging to a citizen by birth or law. Intangible benefits include life, health, personal dignity, liberty, personal inviolability, privacy, personal and family secrets, honor and good name, secrecy of correspondence and telephone conversations, postal dispatches and other communications, inviolability of the home, freedom of movement, freedom to choose a place of stay and residence, the right to freely utilize one's labor capabilities, choose a profession and occupation, the right to work in conditions meeting safety and hygiene standards, the right to respect for family ties, the right to health protection and medical care, the right to use one's name, the right to protection from insult, authorship rights, and other rights (Article 151 of the Labor Code, Paragraph 1 of the Resolution No. 33).

Neither labor nor civil legislation establishes minimum, maximum, or recommended limits for moral damage compensation amounts. Generally, monetary compensation remedies moral damage (Article 1099(1), Article 1101(1) of the Civil Code, Paragraph 24 of the Resolution No. 33).

When determining these amounts, the court evaluates the requirements of reasonableness and fairness, the wrongdoer's degree of fault, and the extent of physical and mental suffering linked to the victim's individual characteristics (Article 151 of the Labor Code, Article 1101(2) of the Civil Code). Courts may consider any noteworthy circumstances. The judicial act must justify the moral damage compensation amount. The moral damage compensation size cannot depend on the scale of monetary claims, principal debt amounts, or financial losses (Paragraph 25 of the Resolution No. 33).

In labor disputes, the court must assess the significance of the intangible benefits to the employee, the severity of the infringement, and the employer's degree of fault (Paragraph 47 of the Resolution No. 33). Specifically, exercising the right to work facilitates the realization of other social and labor rights: fair remuneration, rest, safe working conditions, and statutory social security.

Thus, when satisfying a moral damage claim, the court considers the following factors:

the actual occurrence of the employer's unlawful act. If the court validates the downtime decision and confirms accurate payment, it will deny moral damage compensation, regardless of the employee's distress level;
the severity of the violation (evaluated through the significance of the infringed employee right), alongside the employer's degree of fault;
the severity of the inflicted moral damage (i.e., evaluating physical and mental suffering).

In downtime-related lawsuits, claimed moral damage compensation can reach several hundred thousand rubles. However, courts consistently reduce these demands to a "reasonable limit". Typically, compensation in such disputes ranges from 5,000 rubles to 50,000 rubles.

One procedural nuance warrants attention. Determining the moral damage compensation amount falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the first and appellate instance courts. The cassation court reviews the correct application and interpretation of substantive and procedural law by the lower courts, but lacks the authority to re-evaluate evidence.[29] Therefore, a cassation court cannot revise solely the moral damage compensation amount without reconsidering the entire judgment on its merits.

Employer Administrative Liability for Downtime Violations

The Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (the "CAO RF") lacks a specific provision governing employee rights violations related to downtime initiation. Consequently, courts apply the general provision – Article 5.27 of the CAO RF, regulating employer liability for any labor law violations.

Article 5.27(1) of the CAO RF establishes liability for violating labor legislation and other regulatory acts governing labor relations:

for officials – a warning or an administrative fine ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 rubles;
for individual entrepreneurs – an administrative fine ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 rubles;
for legal entities – an administrative fine ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles.

If a court declares a downtime decision unlawful – for instance, if absolutely no grounds for downtime exist (forced absence) or the employer cited an incorrect justification – authorities may classify this violation under Article 5.27(1) of the CAO RF.

However, the code contains specific provisions regulating liability for employer payment violations – Article 5.27(6) and (7) of the CAO RF. Authorities apply these provisions universally in cases of non-payment or partial payment of wages, as well as other statutory payments owed to the employee. This covers downtime compensation. Therefore, if an employer unlawfully reduces the payment amount or fails to pay for downtime entirely, they face penalties under Article 5.27(6) of the CAO RF, and for a repeated offense, under Article 5.27(7) of the said article:

for officials – a warning or an administrative fine ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 rubles. A repeated violation incurs a fine of 20,000 to 30,000 rubles or disqualification for 1 to 3 years;
for individual entrepreneurs – an administrative fine ranging from 1,000 to 5,000 rubles, and for a repeated violation, from 10,000 to 30,000 rubles;
for legal entities – an administrative fine ranging from 30,000 to 50,000 rubles, and for a repeated violation, from 50,000 to 100,000 rubles.

A crucial point requires consideration: Article 5.27(6) and (7) of the CAO RF operate as special provisions relative to paragraph 1 of the same article. This means that if a labor law violation involves a payment infringement, authorities penalize the employer solely under Article 5.27(6) (or 7), excluding liability under paragraph 1. This bears specific relevance to downtime, as unlawful actions during downtime initiation almost invariably coincide with payment violations.[30]

If an employer fails to notify the employment service about downtime or reports it late, they face liability under Article 19.7 of the CAO RF:

for officials – a warning or an administrative fine ranging from 300 to 500 rubles;
for legal entities – an administrative fine ranging from 3,000 to 5,000 rubles.

Final Conclusions and Strategic Guidance for Businesses

Employers must rigorously safeguard employee rights and interests during any HR procedures, and downtime provides no exception. We outline key aspects requiring consideration when initiating downtime:

Handling critical scenarios: Downtime constitutes a forced measure applicable only in critical scenarios. Initiating downtime demands compelling grounds – economic, technical, technological, or organizational circumstances. The employer must articulate these reasons within the downtime order;
Managing duration limits: Downtime operates as a temporary phenomenon. It cannot extend indefinitely; upon initiation, the employer must establish an end date, extending it if necessary. The law specifies no minimum or maximum duration, but the employer has a duty to reinstate employees to their labor functions at the earliest opportunity;
Structuring proper classifications: When initiating downtime, the employer must correctly classify it and document this in the order. Downtime due to the employer's fault covers almost all downtime scenarios, excluding disasters, accidents, epidemics, and natural calamities. Even if a fire occurs at a facility, a court may still classify it as downtime due to the employer's fault;
Navigating payment thresholds: The downtime period qualifies as neither working time nor rest time. Special rules govern downtime payment: 2/3 of average earnings or of the tariff rate (base salary), depending on employer fault. This represents the statutory payment floor; the employer retains the discretion to compensate downtime at a higher rate;
Determining workplace attendance: During downtime, an employee may remain at the workplace or stay absent. The employer resolves this issue at their discretion and records the decision in the downtime order;
Safeguarding against forced absence classifications: One must differentiate downtime from forced absence. If initiated justifiably and without violations, downtime operates as a lawful HR procedure, not forced absence. When an employer imposes downtime unlawfully without adequate grounds, the court classifies the situation as forced absence. The employer compensates forced absence based on average earnings, a rate higher than downtime pay;
Applying distinct procedural rules: Downtime differs from other HR procedures like redundancy or modifying working conditions. Because downtime serves as a forced measure, the law does not compel the employer to provide advance notice. During downtime, the employer holds no obligation to offer the employee all available vacancies, although they may execute a temporary transfer to another job with the employee's consent. Unlike redundancy, downtime involves no social benefits or priority retention rights. An employee's family status or health condition bears no impact on downtime initiation or payment;
Managing post-litigation reinstatements: Employers should exercise extreme caution when placing a recently court-reinstated employee on downtime. The law does not prohibit downtime for such an employee, but it consistently raises judicial suspicion. In these scenarios, employees possess higher chances of invalidating the downtime, requiring the employer to present exceptionally compelling justification;
Mitigating risks during redundancy: Initiating downtime during redundancy proceedings carries immense risk. Enforcement practice generally disapproves, presuming such downtime unlawful by default. However, the law lacks an explicit prohibition against combining these HR procedures, so in exceptional cases, a court may validate such actions. To succeed, the employer must furnish convincing and irrefutable evidence proving the absolute necessity and inevitability of the downtime.

The most common claims employees bring to court regarding downtime initiation include:

Litigating unlawful initiation: Invalidating the downtime initiation, canceling the downtime order, and classifying the downtime period as forced absence. If the employer lacked economic, technical, or organizational reasons for downtime, the court will grant the claim. Consequently, the employer must cancel the downtime order and pay for the forced absence based on average earnings (or supplement the amount if they previously paid downtime rates). The employer must also pay interest on the awarded sum at 1/150 of the Bank of Russia key rate and compensate moral damage in an amount determined by the court;
Disputing the downtime classification: Modifying the downtime classification and recalculating payment. In this scenario, the plaintiff does not challenge the legality of the downtime itself, only its formulation. A court can reclassify downtime due to reasons beyond the parties' control into downtime due to the employer's fault (the most frequent scenario). Unpaid downtime due to the employee's fault can transform into downtime due to reasons beyond the employer's and employee's control. Because downtime classification directly dictates the payment amount, the court will order the employer to amend the downtime order formulation, recalculate the payment, and disburse the shortfall to the employee. The employer must accrue interest on this shortfall at 1/150 of the Bank of Russia key rate and compensate the employee's moral damage.

Cases where the court will dismiss the employee's claims (most frequent scenarios):

Defending justified decisions: If the employer initiated the contested downtime justifiably and successfully proved its necessity. The order's formulations and downtime classifications align with the law, and the employer calculated and disbursed all payments accurately, timely, and without delays;
Rejecting employee-fault claims: If the employee demands payment for downtime caused by their own fault. This includes unmotivated absence from work or suspension from work due to reasons holding the employee responsible (e.g., failure to pass a medical examination through their own fault). The employer bears no obligation to compensate this timeframe;
Dismissing improper categorizations: If the employee petitions the court to recognize and pay for downtime, despite the employer never issuing a downtime order. In such cases, the court evaluates the broader context for employee rights violations and either dismisses the claim (if the employer committed no violations) or modifies the phrasing of the dispute subject. The court will invariably deny the specific claim to recognize downtime because initiating downtime falls exclusively within the employer's managerial authority, and compelling such an action exceeds judicial powers.

______________________

References

Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Fourth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated March 4, 2025, in Case No. 8G-2721/2025 [88-5391/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated October 23, 2025, in Case No. 8G-28096/2025 [88-25561/2025].
Decisions of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated April 10, 2025, in Case No. 8G-3770/2025 [88-5094/2025], dated March 20, 2025, in Case No. 8G-3762/2025 [88-5519/2025], dated February 20, 2025, in Case No. 8G-2224/2025 [88-3862/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated February 17, 2026, in Case No. 8G-232/2026-(8G-19994/2025) [88-2133/2026].
Decisions of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated July 17, 2025, No. 8G-11010/2025, dated August 7, 2025, No. 88-12629/2025, dated August 7, 2025, No. 88-12828/2025, dated August 7, 2025, No. 88-12631/2025.
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated December 4, 2025, in Case No. 8G-21615/2025 [88-21521/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated December 12, 2024, in Case No. 8G-23453/2024 [88-23673/2024].
Decision of the Leninsky District Court of Smolensk, Smolensk Region, dated September 24, 2018, No. 2-1371/2018.
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Ninth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated October 2, 2025, in Case No. 8G-6114/2025 [88-6278/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated October 2, 2025, in Case No. 8G-21714/2025 [88-21210/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated January 15, 2025, in Case No. 8G-27107/2024 [88-266/2025-(88-27158/2024)].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Ninth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated August 1, 2024, in Case No. 8G-6048/2024 [88-6588/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated September 12, 2024, in Case No. 8G-14581/2024 [88-16022/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated November 18, 2025, in Case No. 8G-29381/2025 [88-28275/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated November 28, 2024, in Case No. 8G-19602/2024 [88-21730/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the First Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated August 5, 2024, in Case No. 8G-21347/2024 [88-24262/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated April 10, 2025, in Case No. 8G-3468/2025[88-4923/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Fourth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated March 4, 2025, in Case No. 8G-2303/2025 [88-5334/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated August 1, 2024, in Case No. 8G-14860/2024 [88-18484/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated May 21, 2020, in Case No. 8G-8710/2020 [88-9446/2020], Appellate Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Kemerovo Regional Court dated June 6, 2019, in Case No. 33-5978/2019, Appellate Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Khabarovsk Regional Court dated December 20, 2018, in Case No. 33-8807/2018, Appellate Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Volgograd Regional Court dated July 12, 2018, in Case No. 33-10331/2018.
Decision of the Seventh Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated June 25, 2020, in Case No. 8G-6080/2020 [88-8067/2020].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Third Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated November 5, 2025, in Case No. 8G-16509/2025 [88-17156/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Ninth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated November 13, 2025, in Case No. 8G-9321/2025 [88-9274/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated December 17, 2024, in Case No. 8G-28730/2024 [88-26992/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated December 10, 2024, in Case No. 8G-24096/2024 [88-24402/2024].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated April 29, 2025, in Case No. 8G-5581/2025 [88-7500/2025].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated March 26, 2026, in Case No. 8G-2678/2026 [88-5809/2026].
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Sixth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated August 15, 2024, in Case No. 8G-15650/2024 [88-17617/2024].
Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Resolution of the Eighth Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction dated August 18, 2026, No. 16-4170/2023.