Dismissal for absenteeism (progul) is one of the most popular tools employers reach for when they want to part ways with an unwanted employee. It is also one of the most legally vulnerable: Russian courts in 2025–2026 are consistently overturning such dismissals due to procedural defects that employers treat as formalities. We analyse four recent cassation court rulings.
What Constitutes Absenteeism Under Russian Law
Absenteeism is absence from the workplace without a valid reason for more than 4 consecutive hours or for an entire working shift (Article 81(6)(a) of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation).
A valid dismissal for absenteeism requires strict compliance with the disciplinary procedure under Article 193 of the Labour Code: draw up an absence report → request a written explanation → wait 2 working days → issue a dismissal order.
This is where the errors occur.
Error 1: One Explanation Request for Multiple Absence Reports
Ruling of the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction (KCGJ), 20.10.2025, No. 88-16875/2025
The employer correctly drew up a separate absence report for each day the employee was missing. But it sent only a single explanation request covering the entire period. The court overturned the dismissal.
The court’s reasoning: each absence report is a separate disciplinary offence. For each one, the employer must request a separate written explanation and allow 2 working days for a response.
The Eighth KCGJ reached the same conclusion in an earlier ruling (27.08.2024, No. 88-17089/2024).
Practical takeaway: if an employee is absent for three days and you have drawn up three absence reports, you must send three separate explanation requests. A single combined request covering a period (“explain your absence from 1 to 3 December”) is a procedural violation that courts will use against the employer.
Error 2: The Workplace Is Not Specified in the Contract
Ruling of the Second KCGJ, 24.04.2025, No. 88-11015/2025
The court set aside the dismissal order, noting that the absence reports did not state the specific address at which the employee was absent, and that the employment contract itself did not define the employee’s workplace.
Practical takeaway: before drawing up absence reports, verify that the employment contract clearly specifies the workplace address. For remote or field-based employees, the contract must set out the procedure for establishing where they work. Without this, the “absence” cannot be proven as a matter of law.
Error 3: The Employee Has Already Submitted a Resignation Notice
Ruling of the First KCGJ, 01.07.2025, No. 88-15351/2025
An employee gave two weeks’ notice of voluntary resignation and then stopped coming to work — including during the notice period. The employer dismissed them for absenteeism. The court found the dismissal unlawful.
The court’s reasoning: once an employee submits a notice of voluntary resignation, they are waiting for the notice period to expire. Their absence during this period cannot be characterised as absenteeism. The correct procedure is to wait for the two weeks to pass and then terminate under the voluntary resignation provisions.
Practical takeaway: if an employee has handed in their notice and stopped showing up, do not rush to issue an absenteeism dismissal order. Either wait for the end of the two-week period, or reach an agreement on an earlier exit date — with the employee’s written consent.
Error 4: A Conflict With Management Is a Defect in Consent
Ruling of the First KCGJ, 07.07.2025, No. 88-18450/2025
An employee submitted a voluntary resignation letter. However, the court established that the immediate cause was a conflict with the line manager. This constitutes a defect in consent (porok voli). The dismissal was overturned even though the resignation letter was written and signed by the employee themselves.
The court’s reasoning: in employment disputes, the key question is whether the employee’s expression of will was voluntary. If the employee demonstrates that pressure, threats, or intolerable working conditions drove the resignation, a formally correct document does not save the employer.
Practical takeaway: if you intend to part ways with an employee through a voluntary resignation, ensure there are no preceding conflicts documented in written correspondence or by witnesses.
What Employers Must Do for a Dismissal to Survive in Court
- Define the workplace in the contract — address, building, room number.
- One explanation request per absence report. Allow 2 working days for each.
- Do not dismiss for absenteeism if the employee has submitted a resignation notice — wait for the notice period to expire.
- Eliminate any indication of coercion in written correspondence and conversations.
- Specify the exact address in every absence report.
The 2025–2026 case law trend is clear: courts scrutinise the procedure, not just the fact of absence. Technically flawless documentation is the only protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many written explanation requests are needed for multi-day absenteeism? One for each absence report. If three reports were drawn up, three separate requests must be sent — each followed by a 2-working-day waiting period. A single combined request covering the whole period is a procedural violation courts will use against the employer.
Can an employee be dismissed for absenteeism after submitting a resignation notice? No. Once a resignation notice has been submitted, the employee is serving out their notice period and their absence does not constitute absenteeism. The employer must either wait for the two-week period to expire or agree on an earlier termination date.
What must be specified in an absence report? The exact workplace address where the employee was absent, and the date and duration of absence. Critically, the workplace must itself be defined in the employment contract — without this, the “absence” is legally unprovable.
Can a court overturn a dismissal if the employee wrote the resignation letter themselves? Yes. If the resignation was the result of pressure or a management conflict, the court may find a “defect in consent” (porok voli) and reinstate the employee, regardless of who physically wrote the letter.
What is the limitation period for challenging a wrongful dismissal? One month from the date the dismissal order is received or the employment record book is handed over (Article 392 of the Labour Code). Missing this deadline is one of the most common grounds for rejecting a claim.
Read Also
- Downtime During Redundancy: New Case Law
- Employment Contract vs. Contractor Agreement: What Employers Risk
- Redundancy: Vacancies Must Be Offered Throughout Notice
Whether you are facing an absenteeism dismissal as an employer or contesting one as an employee — seek legal advice before the one-month limitation period for labour disputes runs out.