An employee’s absence from the workplace during martial law cannot always be classified as absenteeism or used as automatic grounds for dismissal. At the same time, the mere fact that an employee is abroad or cites martial law does not exempt them from their employment obligations. This is reported by the *Sudovo-yurydychna hazeta* (Judicial-Legal Newspaper).
If an employee has been officially transferred to remote work, their physical absence from the office does not, in itself, constitute absenteeism. What matters is whether the employee performed their duties, maintained contact with the employer, and adhered to the agreed-upon work schedule.
In case No. 367/569/23, the Supreme Court noted that an employee’s absence from the workplace during martial law cannot be classified as absenteeism without a valid reason if the employee has been transferred to remote work. However, a remote work arrangement does not imply an exemption from job responsibilities.
If contact with an employee is lost, their job and position are preserved until the reasons for the absence are clarified. As a general rule, this period is unpaid and does not count toward the length of service that entitles an employee to annual leave.
Being abroad also does not automatically terminate the employment relationship. The legality of a dismissal depends, in each case, on the specific circumstances, the evidence provided by the employer, and the reasons for the employee’s absence.
Specific guarantees apply to mobilized employees. Their job and position are preserved, and the employer must take into account the reasons why the individual is effectively unable to perform their duties. In Case No. 331/3589/23, the court ordered the reinstatement of the First Vice-Rector of the National University “Zaporizhzhia Polytechnic,” who had been dismissed for absenteeism following his service in a volunteer territorial defense unit. The court noted that the employer must prove not only the fact of the employee’s absence but also the absence of any valid reasons for it.
In another case, an employee was dismissed after voluntarily joining the Armed Forces of Ukraine at the onset of the full-scale invasion. The court overturned the dismissal, finding that the employer had failed to substantiate the alleged absenteeism with proper evidence and had not investigated the reasons for the employee’s absence.
