08:00, 7 September 2026
The Supreme Court determined that the remote work regime is a significant working condition, and its cancellation may be grounds for changing the terms of employment.
Follow the latest news on SUD.UA social networks
The Supreme Court, in the composition of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, in the ruling dated September 1, 2026, in case No. 571/1394/25, considered a dispute concerning the legality of the dismissal of an employee who worked under a remote work employment contract after the employer canceled this regime and demanded work be performed at the main workplace.
The issue is important for law enforcement, as remote work implies performing labor duties at the employee’s place of residence, while changing this regime directly affects the manner of performing labor duties.
At the same time, for dismissal due to absenteeism, it is necessary to establish not only the fact of the employee’s absence but also the legitimacy of the employer’s requirement for the employee’s presence at the workplace.
Case circumstances
On February 17, 2022, an employment contract was concluded between the employee and the Rokytnivskyi Primary Health Care Center of the Rokytnivska Village Council. The employee was hired as a leading legal advisor at the main workplace on a 0.25 full-time equivalent basis.
The parties agreed on a part-time workday lasting two hours, five working days a week—from 14:00 to 16:00. The work was defined as remote, i.e., performed at the employee’s place of residence.
At the same time, there was a copy of the employment contract supplemented by clause 42, according to which the parties had the right to unilaterally terminate the contract provided the other party was notified at least 14 days in advance. This copy was signed by both parties.
However, on February 24, 2025, the employer notified the employee of the unilateral termination of the remote work employment contract under clause 42 of the contract due to the need to perform tasks, assignments, and orders at the main workplace according to the working hours schedule. The employee received the notification on March 5, 2025.
On March 20, 2025, the employer issued order No. 30a, terminating the remote work employment contract. The employee refused to acknowledge this order, and a commission drew up a corresponding act. A copy of the order was later sent to the employee by mail.
After the cancellation of the remote work regime, the employee did not begin performing labor duties under the new conditions. The employer also sent him assignments and requests for explanationsmunication means
Commission acts recorded the employee’s absence from the workplace from April 1 to 4, from April 7 to 11, as well as on April 14 and 15, 2025. He did not provide explanations for his absence.
Then, on April 15, the employer issued an order imposing disciplinary action on the employee in the form of dismissal for absenteeism. On April 17, he was dismissed under clause 4 of part one of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
The employee appealed to the court, considering the dismissal illegal. He insisted that his workplace according to the employment contract remained his place of residence, and therefore absence from the premises of the healthcare center could not be considered absenteeism. He also pointed out that changing the workplace and canceling remote work constituted a change in significant working conditions, for which the employer had to follow the appropriate procedure.
The district court and later the appellate court denied the claim. The courts reasoned that the employer proved the fact of the disciplinary offense and followed the procedure for applying disciplinary sanctions.
In the cassation appeal, the employee, in particular, insisted on the incorrect application of article 32 of the Labor Code of Ukraine by the courts and stated that the employer had no right to unilaterally change the agreed workplace without changes in the organization of production and labor. He also referred to the failure to investigate evidence and improper examination of his arguments regarding possible forgery of certain documents.
Supreme Court’s position
The Supreme Court indicated that it is necessary to distinguish between significant working conditions and forms of labor organization.
The Court noted that the list of working conditions considered significant is not exhaustive. Significant working conditions may be stipulated both by the employment contract and by local documents at the enterprise (institution, organization)—in the collective agreement, internal labor regulations, staffing schedule, remuneration regulations, and others.
The Supreme Court pointed out that, accordingly, the work regime, including the remote work regime, belongs to significant working conditions.
In this case, the Court established that there was a written employment contract between the parties under which the employee performed remote work at his place of residence. On March 20, 2025, the employer issued an order terminating the remote work employment contract. The employee refused to acknowledge it, and an act was drawn up.
The Court noted that the evidence in the case confirmed both the change of the plaintiff’s significant working conditions and the plaintiff’s refusal to familiarize himself with the order changing the significant working condition, which in this particular case was the cancellation of the remote work regime.
At the same time, the case materials do not contain evidence of the plaintiff challenging the above-mentioned order, so the order remains valid, including at the time the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, indicating the validity of the changes introduced to the significant working conditions.
Separately, the Court referred to the provisions of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine and clarified the meaning of absenteeism.
The Court stated that absenteeism is the employee’s absence from work without valid reasons for more than three hours (continuously or in total). To dismiss an employee on this basis, the owner or authorized body must have evidence confirming the employee’s absence from the workplace for more than three hours during the working day.
To establish absenteeism, i.e., the fact of the person’s absence from the workplace for more than three hours during the working day without valid reasons, the court must clarify the validity of the reason for such absence.
Valid reasons are those that exclude the employee’s fault.
The main criterion for classifying the reasons for the employee’s absence as valid is the presence of objective circumstances independent of the employee’s will that exclude the employee’s fault.
The Supreme Court separately assessed the employer’s compliance with the procedure for obtaining written explanations.
The Court noted that this procedure is one of the guarantees against unjustified disciplinary liability of the employee. However, the legal assessment of the disciplinary offense is carried out based on clarifying all circumstances of its commission, including considering the employee’s written explanation.
At the same time, the Court pointed out that the employer’s failure to request a written explanation from the employee and the absence of such explanation are not grounds for canceling the disciplinary sanction if the fact of labor discipline violation is confirmed by the evidence presented to the court.
Thus, since the employer, within his authority, changed the plaintiff’s work regime by canceling the remote work regime, and the plaintiff refused to familiarize himself with the content of the relevant order, about which an act was drawn up, and a copy of the order was sent to his postal address, the panel of judges concludes that the employer took all proper actions to familiarize the employee with the change of significant working conditions, which in the circumstances of this case consisted in changing the work regime.
The Court also took into account the employee’s behavior after the cancellation of the remote work regime.
Moreover, after the cancellation of the remote work regime, the plaintiff did not begin performing his labor duties. Furthermore, the evidence in the case materials indicates his failure to perform official duties and assignments of the manager, including during remote work, and confirms his absence from the workplace after the cancellation of this regime.
The Supreme Court indicated that under these circumstances, the panel of judges concludes that there were no violations by the employer when dismissing the plaintiff under clause 4 of part one of article 40 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
The Court also rejected the arguments about the failure to investigate evidence, since the employee himself confirmed in court his absence from the workplace due to the remote nature of the work.
In addition, the Supreme Court disagreed with the arguments about the absence of a conclusion regarding the possibility of dismissing an employee who worked remotely, since in this case the employee was properly notified about the cancellation of the remote work regime, such possibility was provided for by the terms of the employment contract, and the employee himself admitted absence from the workplace.
Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the employee’s cassation appeal and left the previous decisions unchanged.
Read also — employee demanded compensation after dismissal and claimed mobbing: why the court denied the claim.
Popular news
<img src="https://sud.ua/uploads/news/2026/09/05/batko-dytyny-z-invalidnistiu-pryishov-do-ttsk-utochnyty-dani-ale-ioho-mobilizuvaly-popry-vidstrochku-shcho-vyrishyv-sud-4.webp" alt="Father of a Child with Disability Came to the Military Commissariat to Clarify Data but Was Mobilized Despite the Deferral: What the Court Decided” loading=”lazy”>
Father of a Child with Disability Came to the Military Commissariat to Clarify Data but Was Mobilized Despite the Deferral: What the Court Decided
The Commission saw that the father with a disability group II walks to the doctor and works himself and did not give the son an act of care – and what the court decided
A man with four children was mobilized in Kharkiv – he went to court but lost the case
A man who accompanied his mother with a group II disability was twice denied at the border – why the court supported the border guards
The Territorial Recruitment Center Cancelled a Student’s Deferment After Border Detention and Mobilized Him: The Court Annulled the Order
