Dismissal of a Director at the Initiative of a Trade Union Organization: the Legal Position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

Essence of the legal position

The Grand Chamber concluded that where several primary trade union organizations operate at an enterprise, each of them has the right, independently, to petition the owner for termination of the employment contract with the head of the enterprise, regardless of whether it is a member of a joint representative body or participated in the conclusion of the collective agreement.

In effect, the Court confirmed that the existence of a joint representative body at an enterprise neither removes nor limits the powers of an individual primary trade union organization where such powers are expressly provided for by law. The right of a trade union organization to initiate termination of the employment contract with the head of an enterprise does not depend on its participation in the joint representative body or on its status as a party to the collective agreement.

Background of the dispute

The Acting Head of the enterprise filed a lawsuit against the trade union organization, seeking to invalidate the decision of the trade union committee that initiated the termination of his employment contract.

Among other things, the claimant argued that the procedure for adopting such a decision had been violated, that there were no proper legal grounds for it, and that the relevant issue had not been agreed with other employee representatives or persons involved in the conclusion of the collective agreement. It was also specifically alleged that the trade union organization had abused its rights.

In turn, the trade union organization substantiated its position by referring to violations by the enterprise’s management of labour legislation and the provisions of the collective agreement. The arguments advanced included failure to comply with certain provisions of the collective agreement, failure to provide the staffing schedule, and the adoption of HR decisions during a period of staff reduction or employee dismissal.

The courts of prior instances dismissed the claim, after which the case was reviewed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which provided a generalized conclusion regarding the scope of powers of primary trade union organizations in similar legal relationships.

Legal significance of the Resolution

The practical value of this Resolution lies in the fact that it removes uncertainty in situations where several primary trade union organizations operate within the same enterprise, representing different groups of employees and potentially taking different positions regarding the employer’s actions or those of the enterprise’s management.

The Grand Chamber clearly distinguished the powers vested in a trade union organization by virtue of law from its organizational participation in a joint representative body or in the collective bargaining process. This approach is of considerable importance, since in practice, employers often equate the status of a participant in collective bargaining with the status of a holder of all trade union rights and powers. The Resolution confirms that such an equation is erroneous.

Practical implications for employers

For employers and enterprise managers, this legal position means that due regard must be given to legally significant actions taken by each primary trade union organization operating within the enterprise and acting within the scope of its competence. The fact that a trade union organization is not a member of a joint representative body or did not participate in the conclusion of the collective agreement is not, in itself, sufficient grounds to disregard its demands where the relevant right is expressly provided for by law.

From a practical perspective, this increases the importance of proper documentation of management decisions, compliance with internal procedures, and systematic communication with all trade union organizations operating within the enterprise. Where several trade union organizations are present, the likelihood of conflicting positions between them increases; therefore, any HR decisions concerning the head of the enterprise should be made with particular procedural caution.

Significance for trade union organizations

For trade union organizations, the Resolution is primarily important as it confirms their institutional autonomy in labour relations. A primary trade union organization does not lose the powers granted to it by law merely because a joint representative body has been established at the enterprise or because another trade union organization participates in collective bargaining regulation.

At the same time, this legal position also highlights the reverse aspect: the exercise of such powers requires proper procedural formalization, compliance with statutory requirements, and adequate substantiation of decisions adopted by trade union bodies.

Conclusion

The Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 21 January 2026 in case No. 359/8573/20 serves as an important guideline for future practice in applying the rules governing the powers of trade union organizations at enterprises where several such organizations operate. The Court confirmed that each such organization may independently exercise the powers provided for by law, including the right to demand termination of the employment contract with the head of the enterprise pursuant to Article 45 of the Labour Code of Ukraine.