Трудовое законодательство России vs коронавирус: кто победит?Аннотация. Распространение новой коронавирусной инфекции и вызванные ею последствия (ограничение социальных контактов, необходимость соблюдения гражданами режима самоизоляции, сокращение объема производимой продукции и (или) оказываемых услуг, приостановление деятельности по ряду отраслей) поставили перед трудовым законодательством проблему оптимального согласования интересов сторон трудовых отношений и интересов государства. В статье предпринята попытка рассмотреть возможные действия работодателя, направленные на минимизацию негативных последствий распространения вируса, как на основе механизмов, уже заложенных в трудовом законодательстве, так и с учетом мер, принимаемых на федеральном и региональном уровне. Автор выражает надежду, что распространение новой коронавирусной инфекции не приведет к глобальному пересмотру заложенных в трудовом законодательстве прав и обязанностей работников, но позволит по-новому оценить имеющийся баланс интересов работников и работодателей. Ключевые слова: коронавирусная инфекция; COVID-19; работодатели; приостановление деятельности; сокращение объема заказов; удаленный режим работы; дистанционная работа; баланс интересов; трудовой договор; трудовое право. Для цитирования: Черных Н. В. Трудовое законодательство России vs коронавирус: кто победит? // Актуальные проблемы российского права.

As the result of the active development of electronic (digital) technologies and the consequent change in the characteristics of labor as a social phenomenon the so-called atypical forms of employment emerged and spread. This trend is typical for both foreign countries and the Russian Federation. However, the lag in the legal regulation of atypical forms of employment in our country raises various problems of law enforcement. In turn, the need to understand the new properties of labor performed within the framework of atypical forms of employment, the analysis of the modification of classical features of labor relations developed by the domestic science of labor law represent the reason for the lack of the relevant legal regulation. The article attempts to trace such modification on the example of norms regulating distance work and enshrined in Chapter 49.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation with due regard to the emerging practice of their application.

The paper investigates the issue of the unity of labor law in the context of development of legalization of so-called new, atypical forms of employment in European countries and their forthcoming (and partially already completed) legalization in the Russian Federation. The author has analized some negative features of atypical forms of employment, the preservation of which can threaten the unity and integrity of labor law. the paper highlights the inadmissibility of reducing the uniform standard of labor rights and focuses on problems in the institution of labour remuniration and protection. On the basis of the analysis of elements characterizing the unity of labor law, the author describes deviations from the classical features of labor relations that sometimes lead to shifting employers’ (entrepreneurial) risk on the person involved in hired labor.The author concludes that the extension of the scope of application of the provisions of Chapter 53.1 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (albeit in a very limited scope) to employees working in government authorities and the public sector is a very disturbing trend. Traditionally, the budget sphere is seen as low-paid stable employment. The introduction of non-permanent, atypical employment into the public sector reduces the low level of employment rights of employees in the public sector. The development of atypical forms of employment not only actively affect the informal employment sector, but also invade the field of “traditional” relations, setting incorrect directions of HR policies. In this regard, acts adopted by the legislator in the case of legalization of one of the atypical forms of employment must be strictly correlated with the fundamental principles of labor law, the concept of a uniform labor relation and basic rights of the employee, which will prevent the destruction of the unity of labor law.

The paper highlights the problem of the growth of the segment of precarious employment in the work of researchers and the faculty, who work mainly in scientific and educational institutions (scientific and pedagogical workers). Besides the elements of precarious employment characteristic of the category of workers under consideration, the author considers the fixed-term nature of labor relations and the low level of the conditionally constant part of wages in the general structure of wages of scientific and pedagogical workers, which can be attributed to the legal prerequisites for the deterioration (precarization) of their labour regulation. In addition to the acts of federal legislation regulating the labor of scientific and pedagogical workers, the author analyzes the provisions of the relevant acts of social partnership for the period from 2015 untill 2023. The author highlights the problem of increasing the types of work included by the employer in the employment of the “second half of the day” of scientific and pedagogical workers without paying additional wages. The lack of legal regulation of the distribution of types of work performed by a scientific and pedagogical worker within a 36-hour working week is also noted by the author among the legal preconditions that, with appropriate law enforcement, worsen the conditions of employment of such workers due to the significantly increasing proportion of time that workers spend on achieving performance indicators and efficiency determined by the employer. In the conclusion of the paper, the author justifies amendments to the legislation in terms of regulating a fixed-term employment contract, establishing the share of guaranteed wages in the overall structure of wages, regulating the types of work included in the working hours of scientific and pedagogical workers at the level of a by-law, which cumulatively will promote sustainability of employment conditions for employees and improve their legal status.

The article considers legal relations arising between the employee, the primary employer and the seconding employer when a secondment agreement is made to provide staff (personnel) and when the employment contract is made between the employee and the seconding employer represented by a private employment agency. It is noted that secondment of staff (personnel) is one of the legalized forms of atypical employment in the Russian Federation, the author considers peculiarities of such relations. The author discusses the problem of “precarization” of employees’ labor temporarily sent to the secondment employer, considers the mechanisms of protection of workers from deterioration of their legal status and determines inefficiency of such mechanisms. The paper considers the issues related to 1) modification of traditional approaches to regulation of labor relations with employees temporarily sent to another entity performing the functions of the employer; 2) the problems of implementation of collective rights of workers; 3) the refusal to use traditional mechanisms of bringing employees to disciplinary and financial responsibility; and 4) the “splitting” of the status of the employer between the primary employer and the seconding employer.