Search results

The article is devoted to the study of legal regulation of disciplinary responsibility of employees. The expediency of separation of general and special disciplinary responsibility is substantiated. Specific features of special disciplinary responsibility are outlined. Proposals for improving national legislation providing for disciplinary liability are provided. In particular, it is proposed in all special laws that provide for disciplinary liability to clearly link all disciplinary penalties to specific disciplinary offenses. The peculiarities of disciplinary responsibility are presented, one of which is the use of penalties by the subject of employment relationship, namely the employer, which makes disciplinary responsibility one of the expressive powers of the employer in relation to the employee who has concluded an employment contract with him. The main differences between the special disciplinary responsibility and the general are noted, namely: 1) the circle of persons to whom it applies; 2) types of disciplinary sanctions; 3) the number of persons who may apply disciplinary sanctions; 4) the procedure for applying the penalties; 5) the procedure for appealing disciplinary penalties. It is substantiated that the special disciplinary responsibility of employees differs from the general broader content of disciplinary misconduct, more severe sanctions. An analysis of the national legislation was carried out, which allowed to identify a number of laws establishing the peculiarities of disciplinary responsibility. It is noted that all the above laws establish disciplinary liability only for a clearly defined circle of employees. Attention is drawn to the fact that although the aforementioned laws apply to public servants, they lack unanimity, above all in the amount of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed on the employees concerned. It is proposed in all special laws that provide for disciplinary responsibility to clearly attach all disciplinary penalties to specific disciplinary offenses. ; Стаття присвячена дослідженню правового регулювання дисциплінарної відповідальності працівників. Обґрунтовується доцільність виокремлення загальної та спеціальної дисциплінарної відповідальності. Окреслюються особливості спеціальної дисциплінарної відповідальності. Надаються пропозиції з удосконалення національного законодавства, яке передбачає дисциплінарну відповідальність. Зокрема пропонується у всіх спеціальних законах, які передбачають дисциплінарну відповідальність, чітко прив'язати всі дисциплінарні стягнення до конкретних дисциплінарних проступків. Наведені особливості дисциплінарної відповідальності, однією з яких є застосування стягнень суб'єктом трудових правовідносин, а саме роботодавцем, через що дисциплінарна відповідальність є одним із виявів владних повноважень роботодавця стосовно працівника, що уклав із ним трудовий договір. Зазначаються основні відмінності спеціальної дисциплінарної відповідальності від загальної, а саме: 1) коло осіб, на яких вона поширюється; 2) види дисциплінарних стягнень; 3) коло осіб, які можуть застосовувати дисциплінарні стягнення; 4) порядок застосування стягнень; 5) порядок оскарження покладених дисциплінарних стягнень. Обгрунтовано, що спеціальна дисциплінарна відповідальність працівників відрізняється від загальної ширшим змістом дисциплінарного проступку, суворішими санкціями. Проведено аналіз національного законодавства, який дозволив виділити низку законів, які встановлюють особливості дисциплінарної відповідальності. Відзначено, що всі вищезазначені закони встановлюють дисциплінарну відповідальність лише для чітко визначеного в них кола працівників. Звернено увагу на те, що хоча вищезазначені закони стосуються службовців державних органів в них не має одностайності, передусім у кількості видів дисциплінарних стягнень, які можуть бути накладені на відповідних службовців. Запропоновано у всіх спеціальних законах, які передбачають дисциплінарну відповідальність чітко прив'язати всі дисциплінарні стягнення до конкретних дисциплінарних проступків

Problem setting. Reforming prosecutor legislative establishment in Ukraine, expanding the list of grounds for bringing to disciplinary liability of prosecutors as subjects of labor law leads to new, unresolved issues related to the above circumstances. One of the discussion issues today is the distinction of bringing to disciplinary liability of prosecutors for certain types of offences, namely: disciplinary offense, which consists in violation of labor and official duties or committing actions (offenses) incompatible with the official position of such person, actions (offense) that indicate dishonesty of the prosecutor or may doubt on his integrity. Article's main body. Consider the actual issues of special disciplinary responsibility borne by prosecutors. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Summarizing above-mentioned, we can draw the following important conclusions that are of relevance to the law-making process and law enforcement practice. 1. Based on the research carried out, it can be concluded that special disciplinary responsibility of a prosecutor as a variety of disciplinary responsibility, should be considered as an opportunity of an authorized subject to apply measures of disciplinary coercion against prosecutor, which are being stipulated in relevant labor laws, charters, regulations on labor discipline in case of non-fulfilment or improper fulfilment of labor and other civil servants' duties stemming from their labor functions, or if a special subject commits actions (offences), that indicate dishonesty of the prosecutor or may doubt about his/her integrity which are in conflict with the official capacity to be performed by the latter. 2. Special disciplinary responsibility of prosecutors shall be understood as a duty of an authorized subject of a public authority to apply disciplinary coercion measures against prosecutors as well as public and power restrictions, deprivations of non-monetary nature involving the necessity to undergo punishment for guilty illegal non-performance or improper performance of labor duties or for the actions that are incompatible with prosecutors official capacity, as well as actions or inaction that indicate dishonesty of the prosecutor or cause doubt about his/her integrity which are in conflict with the official capacity to be performed by the latter.3. It seems appropriate to introduce certain adjustments to the theoretical advances within the scope of the disciplinary prosecution against prosecutor not only when the prosecutor do not fulfil their labor and other duties stemming from their labor duty functions, but also when a prosecutor commits actions (offences), which are in conflict with the official capacity to be performed by the latter, as well as actions or inaction that indicate dishonesty of the prosecutor or may doubt on his integrity. ; У статті розглянуто актуальні теоретичні питання спеціальної дисциплінарної відповідальності таких суб'єктів трудового права, як прокурорські працівники, проаналізовано вітчизняне законодавство з порушеної проблематики та погляди науковців. У підсумку зроблено важливі висновки, які мають значення для правозастосовної практики.

The article deals with the topical issues of disciplinary actions application in Ukraine. The author carried out a deep analysis of main characteristics of such a responsibility. A distinction between disciplinary and other kinds of legal liability is underlined. In particular, the need for disciplinary and administrative responsibility distinguishing is stressed. The classification of disciplinary responsibility is done. The author categorizes a general and a specific disciplinary responsibility. In the article the need to maintain a separate category of disciplinary responsibility in the Ukrainian legislation is evidenced. ; В статье рассмотрены актуальные вопросы применения в Украине мер дисциплинарной ответственности. Автором проведен глубокий анализ основных характеристик ответственности такого рода. Проведено разграничение дисциплинарной и других видов юридической ответственности. В частности, акцентирована необходимость различения дисциплинарной и административной ответственности. Проведена классификация самой дисциплинарной ответственности. Автор выделяет общую и специальную дисциплинарную ответственность. В статье обоснована необходимость сохранения в законодательстве Украины самостоятельной категории дисциплинарной ответственности. ; У статті розглянуто актуальні питання застосування в Україні заходів дисциплінарної відповідальності. Розмежовано дисциплінарну відповідальність та схожі види юридичної відповідальності. Виокремлено основні ознаки цього виду юридичної відповідальності.

Establishing an employment relationship involves acquiring or assuming certain rights, duties and responsibilities for both parties in the employment relationship, in accordance with the law, the collective agreement, the employer's general administrative acts, and the employment contract. An employment relationship involves not only the parties' rights and duties but also their responsibility. Responsibility can be of legal and non-legal nature. Legal responsibility (liability) is of greater importance for the employees. On the whole, legal responsibility may be disciplinary, material, administrative (for misdemeanors), economic (for economic offenses) and criminal in nature. The subject matter of labour law includes only disciplinary and material liability of the employee, while other types of legal responsibility are the subject matter of other legal disciplines. Although the former labour legislation of the Republic of Serbia regulated the disciplinary liability of the employees in detail, such practice has been completely abandoned in the new Labour Act, which only regulates the summary dismissal procedure. Unlike the Labour Act, the Civil Servants Act contains numerous provisions on the disciplinary and material liability of civil servants. This Act also regulates procedural issues regarding the rules for initiating and conducting a disciplinary proceeding, entering disciplinary sanctions in or removing them from the personnel files, etc. In this paper, the author analyzes disciplinary liability by examining the specifics of substantive and procedural norms for establishing this form of liability in the general and special employment relations regime. From the aspect of the rule of law, the author provides a critical analysis of such legislative solutions and considers their legal justification.

This article is devoted to the research on the concept and features of the advocate's wrongful cooperation with law-enforcement bodies and the circumstances that influence the severity of a disciplinary penalty in the result of such cooperation. A list of certain features is given to distinguish the lawful cooperation of an advocate with law-enforcement bodies from the wrongful one, which leads to bringing the advocate to the disciplinary responsibility. The author ascertains the forms in which the wrongful cooperation of an advocate and law-enforcement bodies may occur. The article determines that law-enforcement bodies often use the information that an advocate possesses due to his/her special professional status in order to perform their functions. Besides, the article examines the possibility for an advocate to be a whistleblower under the Law of Ukraine on Prevention of Corruption. The article also analyzes the decision of the Supreme Court in the administrative case where the decision of the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Bar Commission (HQDB) on bringing the advocate to the disciplinary responsibility and imposing a disciplinary penalty of depriving him the right to advocacy for a wrongful cooperation with law-enforcement bodies is appealed. In this research the attention is paid to the wrongdoer's arguments and the corresponding legal position of the Supreme Court which, having used the acts of the national legislation, determined advocate's actions to be illegal and denied the claimant's demands. The author defines the category of a "wrongful cooperation of an advocate with law-enforcement bodies", determines its features, and suggests the ways for improving the effectiveness of bringing wrongdoers to the disciplinary responsibility in case of such cooperation. Keywords: a disciplinary offence, a disciplinary penalty, a confidant, a whistleblower, secret investigatory (inquiry) operations, tracking measures.

Maģistra darba "Disciplināratbildības institūts militārajā dienestā" mērķis ir disciplīnas regulējuma militārajā dienestā izpēte, tiesu prakses analīze un disciplīnu regulējošo tiesību normu iztulkošana, kā arī disciplināratbildības piemērošanas kļūdu un problēmjautājumu apskate. Maģistra darba pamatā ir izmantotas vairākas pētījumu metodes – vēsturiskā, analītiskā, salīdzinošā, induktīvā un deduktīvā metode. Maģistra darbs sastāv no ievada, astoņām nodaļām, kopsavilkuma un izmantotās literatūras un juridisko aktu saraksta. Maģistra darba ievadā tiek pamatota izvēlētās tēmas aktualitāte, formulēts pētījuma mērķis un noteikti galvenie pētījuma uzdevumi. Maģistra darbā raksturots disciplināratbildības institūts militārajā dienestā, tā vēsturiskā attīstība, mijiedarbība ar citiem atbildības veidiem. Analizēts komandieru (priekšnieku) disciplinārās varas apmērs un ietekme uz padotajiem, izpētīti disciplinārsodu veidi un konkretizēts par kāda veida pārkāpumiem var piemērot konkrēto disciplinārsodu. Maģistra darbā analizēts, kādā veidā militārajā dienestā tiek izskatīta disciplinārlieta par karavīra izdarītu disciplināro pārkāpumu un apskatīta disciplinārā pārkāpuma juridiskā kvalifikācija un tās noteikšanas problemātika. Maģistra darbā darba autore veic teorētisku pētījumu par disciplīnu ar mērķi izpētīt, ko ietver disciplināratbildības institūta saturs militārajā dienestā. Maģistra darba kopsavilikumā apkopoti būtiskākie secinājumi, kas radušies teorētiskā pētījuma rezultātā. Maģistra darbā izmantoti Latvijas un ārvalstu autoru zinātniskie darbi, Latvijas un ārvalstu normatīvie akti, kā arī tiesu prakse. Atslēgvārdi: disciplināratbildība, disciplinārā vara, disciplinārsods, disciplinārlieta, dienesta pārbaude, dienesta izmeklēšana, disciplinārā pārkāpuma juridiskā kvalifikācija, administratīvais akts. ; The purpose of master's thesis "Disciplinary responsibility in the military service" is to study the regulation of dicipline in military service, to analyse jurisprudence and to interpret the application of the law related to it, as well as to examine mistakes of it's application and issues. Comparison on historical, analytical, comparative, inductive and deductive method of research are used in the development of the master's thesis. Master's thesis consists of introduction, eight chapters, summary and the table and source list. Author substantiates the relevance of the chosen theme, articulates the goal and identifies the main objectives of the study in the introduction. Master's thesis describes the institute of disciplinary responsibility in military service, it's historical development, interaction with the other modifications of responsibilties. There is an analysis of the disciplinary authority of commanders and it's influence on dependent and found out modifications of disciplinary penalties and violation of rules in master's thesis. There is an analysis about the disciplinary issue and how it is looked through in the military service when the man of war did disciplinary violation and found out the juridical qualification of disciplinary violation. Author performs a theoretical research about the dicipline with a purpose to find out what is the meaning of it in military service. There are essential conclusions in summary, which are made in the result of theoretical research. Master's thesis is based on the Latvian and foreign authors treatises, Latvian and foreign laws and regulations, as well as jurisprudence. Keywords: disciplinary responsibility, authority of discipline, disciplinary penalty, disciplinary issue, official testing, official examination, the juridical qualification of the violation of discipline, administrative act.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "In the 2000-01 school year, more than 91,000 special education students were removed from their educational settings for disciplinary reasons. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools are required to provide educational services to special education students who are removed from their educational settings for more than 10 days in a school year. Congress asked GAO to determine where disciplined special education students are placed, the extent to which local school districts continue educational services for these students, and how the U.S. Department of Education provides support and oversight for special education disciplinary placements. To address these objectives, GAO conducted a study, using surveys and site-visits, of special education disciplinary placements in three states--Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina."

For the English full text of the article please see the attached PDF-File (English version follows Russian version).ABSTRACT The article, on the basis of the analysis of the norms of Russian labor legislation, considers topical issues of disciplinary responsibility of maritime transport employees. Some outdated norms and approaches are shown, as well as theoretical and practical features of the draft law on the discipline of maritime employees and safety of navigation are thoroughly investigated. The author concludes, in particular, that the proposal of the draft law to provide the employer with the authority to «discharge from work duties» employees for up to one year, similar to the powers of an inquirer, an investigator, a prosecutor and court for suspension from work (position) due to commission of a crime, is incompatible with the legal status, what an employer has. Keywords: disciplinary responsibility, maritime transport employees, article 189 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Charter on Discipline, judicial practice. ; Полный текст на англ. языке находится в прилагаемом файле ПДФ (англ. версия следует после русской версии).В статье на основе анализа норм трудового законодательства рассматриваются актуальные вопросы дисциплинарной ответственности работников морского транспорта. Показаны некоторые устаревшие нормы и подходы, а также детально исследованы теоретические и практические особенности законопроекта об уставе о дисциплине работников сферы мореплавания, безопасности судовождения.

In this article essence of concept «disciplinary responsibility» is found out and the decision of definition is offered «disciplinary responsibility of civil servant». The fastened is marked in Law of Ukraine «On Civil Service» exhaustive list of breaches of discipline of civil servants, which is foundation for bringing in to disciplinary responsibility. It is marked about absence of concept «breach of discipline» in a current legislation. Suggestions are considered in relation to acceptance of the unique normatively act. ; У даній статті з'ясовано сутність поняття «дисциплінарна відповідальність» та запропоновано визначення дефініції «дисциплінарна відповідальність державного службовця». Зазначено закріплений в Законі України «Про державну службу» вичерпний перелік дисциплінарних проступків державних службовців, який є підставою для притягнення державного службовця до дисциплінарної відповідальності. Наголошено про відсутність поняття «дисциплінарна відповідальність державного службовця » в чинному законодавстві. Розглянуто пропозиції щодо прийняття єдиного нормативно акту.