Quite often, a conflict is hidden behind the "agreement of the parties" when terminating an employment relationship. Sometimes the employer, in order to annoy the employee, delays the calculation or issuance of the workbook. But it also happens that an employee, defending his rights, puts forward unlawful demands.

The Supreme Court examined the nuances of the application of the relevant norms of the Labor Code in case No. 686/20491/18. The text of the ruling of the Civil Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court recently appeared in the Unified State Register of Judgments.

In February 2018, a woman was fired from her job "by agreement of the parties." But on the day of her dismissal, she was not given a work book and was not paid back wages, compensation for unused vacation and temporary disability.

At the same time, in accordance with Article 116 of the Labor Code the employee severance payment of all amounts due to it from the enterprise, institution or organization, should be made the day of dismissal.

Therefore, she applied to the court for the protection of her rights. At the same time, the former employee demanded compensation in connection with the delay in settlements (average earnings on the day of actual settlement, as provided for in Article 117 of the Labor Code), as well as compensation in connection with the delay in issuing a work book (average earnings for the entire period of forced absenteeism in accordance with Art. .5 article 235 of the Labor Code).

The Supreme Court, where the labor dispute reached, noted that the provisions of Articles 117 and 235 of the code provide for the employer's liability in the form of collecting average earnings during the same absenteeism of the employee to compensate him for losses from non-receipt of wages or impossibility of employment.

However, for violation of the labor rights of an employee with one dismissal, it is impossible to simultaneously apply the recovery of average earnings both under Article 117 and Article 235 of the Code, that is, double recovery of the average earnings, since this will be incommensurate with the rights of an employee who receives one salary.