Mobilized and volunteers in Russia after returning from the war in Ukraine now have priority when hiring for their previous job. The corresponding amendments to the Labor Code were approved in the third reading by the lower house of parliament. However, there are several holes in the amendments: it is not clear who and how will control that the returned mobilized be placed in their previous position on a priority basis, HR expert, head of the Career Development School Harry Muradyan told The Insider. It will also be difficult to sue if the employer fails to comply with the rule, as he may refer to the absence of vacant positions or declare that he is looking for a specialist with a different qualification.
“If a person returns from contract service as part of mobilization, then he should be considered as an applicant for a vacant position on a priority basis. If the employer has 10-15 vacancies and a candidate who has already worked for him, but was mobilized, responds, then he must be the first to be called for an interview and, based on this, consider him as an applicant for the position.
The reality is this: firstly, the position from which a person left may no longer exist; secondly, who monitors this priority is not clear. There's a rule in the law that you can't kill, and that's what the police are there to enforce, and there's no regulator in this story that asks, "Were the candidates considered in order of priority?" Moreover, if the employer does not want to return this person to the position, he can come up with many reasons why the candidate did not fit, or even refuse to give feedback, which is what most employers do. The law was adopted, but it is not yet clear how it will work, because there are several holes in the form of control over priority and in the form of control over feedback.
A returned mobilized person can sue, and they will say: “There are no vacancies” or “At the moment, the market situation has changed, and a person with a different qualification is needed for this position.” As for practice, there is a rule – during mobilization, a person must be forcibly terminated an employment contract, he is also entitled to social benefits, payments for non-vacation leave, and so on.
When he wants to get a job again, he will respond on a general basis, there should not be any priorities. However, the state says: “We are making this a priority.” Okay, done, but how will you control? Unclear. If the applicant was an active employee, and he was fired, then yes, the court would take the side of the applicant. But since this is just a person who wants to get a job, and there have not yet been cases for the court to oblige to conclude a contract, it will be quite difficult to break through this field.
