The Fourth Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction (Четвертый кассационный суд общей юрисдикции), a Russian court reviewing lower-court decisions, in its determination dated 1 July 2026 No. 88-16494/2026 drew attention to the content of an order dismissing an employee for disciplinary violations. If the document does not specify exactly which offenses were attributed to the employee and which disciplinary penalties had previously been imposed, the court may find a procedural violation. For an employer, this means it is necessary to control not only whether grounds for dismissal exist, but also the quality of the entire HR documentation process.
Why the wording of the dismissal order has become an HR risk area
In the dispute under review, the cassation court assessed the dismissal of an employee for disciplinary violations. The practical conclusion from the court’s position is that the order should not be a formal document containing only a general ground or a reference to an article of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (Трудовой кодекс РФ), the main Russian law governing employment. It should be clear from the order what employee conduct led the employer to make its decision.
For a company, the order is the final document in the procedure, linking the violation, the evidence and the selected ground for dismissal. When this link is absent from the order itself, it is more difficult for the employer to prove that the decision was made on the basis of specific circumstances rather than an abstract formulation. Insufficient specificity may become an independent argument in an employment dispute.
What information should be included in the order
The employer should describe the specific offense rather than limit itself to a general formulation. The material examined identifies the main points of reference: the date or period when the violation occurred, the employment duty that was breached, and the documents on which the conclusion is based. This makes the content of the order verifiable and understandable when considered together with the HR case materials.
If the dismissal is based on repeated failure to perform employment duties, information about previously imposed disciplinary penalties must be included. Their significance is that the repeated nature of the violation should not remain merely an assertion by the employer. Before issuing the order, the HR department should make sure that the previous penalty exists and has not been lifted or expired.
Process controls before the decision is signed
The review is not limited to editing the text of the order. First, the organization records the violation in a report, an internal memorandum or another document stating the date and circumstances. The employee is then asked to provide written explanations; if they are not provided, a report is prepared. These documents form the basis on which the order must subsequently rely.
It is also necessary to check the time limits for the disciplinary procedure. As a general rule, a penalty must be imposed no later than one month from the date the offense is discovered, and the employee must be given two working days to provide explanations. In addition, the general maximum time limits under Article 193 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation (статья 193 ТК РФ) apply. The source data do not specify the details of calculating these periods for the particular situation, so they should be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case and the applicable ground.
How to structure internal HR controls
It is useful to divide dismissal preparation into two checks: factual and documentary. During the first, responsible employees compare the violation with the employee’s duty and the materials collected. During the second, they verify that the selected ground corresponds to those materials and that the order specifies the circumstances of the offense and the supporting documents.
This approach is particularly important when the ground is a repeated violation. The HR department should separately verify the information about the previous penalty and its status rather than transfer an unverified wording into the order. As a result, the employer has a logical and verifiable sequence: violation, explanations, documents, assessment of the ground and order.
Consequences of formal documentation
The court’s position does not establish a new special time limit or change the rule. It confirms the significance of an existing procedure: a formal statement of the ground for dismissal is insufficient. The order must make it possible to determine which violations formed the basis of the decision and which documents confirm them.
If the order does not specify the offense and the previous penalties relevant to the ground, the dismissal may be found unlawful. For the employer, the risk includes reinstatement of the employee, payment for the period of forced absence from work and other payments connected with the court dispute. Therefore, correcting the logic of the documentation after dismissal is considerably more difficult than carrying out a documentary review before signing the order.
What to check
- Record the violation in a report, an internal memorandum or another document stating the date and circumstances.
- Ask the employee for written explanations; if they are not provided, prepare the relevant report.
- Check the ground for dismissal against the actual circumstances and the documents collected.
- When dismissing an employee for repeated failure to perform duties, confirm that the disciplinary penalty has not been lifted or expired.
- Include in the order a description of the specific offense, the date or period, the duty breached and the supporting documents.
- State information about previous disciplinary penalties if they are relevant to the selected ground.
- Have the employee acknowledge the order by signature, or document the employee’s refusal or inability to acknowledge it.