Dismissal for Absenteeism in Russia: Procedure and Documents

An employee doesn’t show up for work. No call, no message, phone unanswered. By the next day it’s clear this isn’t illness or an emergency. The employer faces a question: how do you dismiss this person correctly, so a court doesn’t order them reinstated later?

Dismissal for absenteeism (progul) is one of the most common grounds for ending an employment relationship in Russia. It is also one of the riskiest for employers: Russian cassation courts in 2025–2026 have been consistently overturning such dismissals over procedural defects that employers often treat as mere formalities.

First Actions (Do These Right Now)

1. Draw up an Act of Absence — on the day of the absence or the next business day, signed by witnesses
2. Demand a written explanation — by registered letter with an inventory of contents, or delivered in person against signature (not by messenger)
3. Wait the full 2 business days — give the employee the full 2 business days to respond (counted from the day after they receive the demand)
4. Draw up an Act of Refusal — if no explanation is received by the 3rd business day

What Russian Law Defines as Absenteeism

Absenteeism (progul) is an employee’s absence from the workplace without a valid reason for an entire working day, or for more than four consecutive hours within a single working day. The ground for dismissal is sub-clause “a,” clause 6, part 1, Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The disciplinary procedure itself is governed by Article 193 of the Labor Code (clause 39 of Plenum Resolution No. 2 of the Supreme Court of Russia, dated 17 March 2004).

Key points:

• A single day of unexcused absence is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
• Four consecutive hours is the minimum continuous absence threshold. Important: the lunch break is not counted toward these four hours (Review of Case Law on Disputes Concerning Termination of Employment at the Employer’s Initiative, approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia on 9 December 2020).
• Without a valid reason excludes illness (even without a formal sick-leave certificate, if a doctor’s note exists), a summons from a state authority, an emergency, or a court appearance.

A condition employers often overlook: the workplace must be defined in the employment contract. The Second Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction (KCGJ) set aside a dismissal for exactly this reason (Ruling of 24 April 2025, No. 88-11015/2025): the absence reports did not state the specific address at which the employee was absent, and the employment contract itself never defined the employee’s workplace. Without a clearly stated workplace address, “absence” cannot be proven as a matter of law — for remote or field-based employees, the contract needs its own procedure for establishing where the employee is expected to be.

Justified vs. Unjustified Absence

The Labor Code does not provide a closed list of valid reasons for absence. Courts determine this on a case-by-case basis. Key principle: the employer is obligated to review the employee’s explanation on its merits (Ruling of the Seventh KCGJ of 25 June 2026, No. 88-9000/2026; Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025).

A separate trap: the employee has already submitted a resignation notice. If an employee has given notice and stops showing up during the two-week notice period, they cannot be dismissed for absenteeism: the First KCGJ found such a dismissal unlawful (Ruling of 1 July 2025, No. 88-15351/2025). The court’s reasoning — once notice is submitted, the employee is simply waiting out the notice period, and their absence during that period does not qualify as absenteeism. The employer must either wait for the two weeks to run out, or agree to an earlier exit with the employee’s consent.

The Mandatory Five-Step Dismissal Procedure

Step 1. Draw Up an Act of Absence — a Separate Act for Each Day of Absence

When: on the day of the absence or the next business day (Article 193 of the Labor Code; Ruling of the Seventh KCGJ of 25 June 2026, No. 88-9000/2026).

Who: the manager plus at least 2 witnesses (colleagues, security staff). All parties sign the act.

Contents:

• The employee’s full name, position, and department
• The specific date of absence (not a “period” — one exact day)
• The exact time of absence (e.g., 09:00 to 18:00)
• The exact address where the employee was expected, matching the address stated in the employment contract
• Any attempts made to contact the employee, and the outcome
• The date the act was drawn up
• Witness signatures

Example:

ACT OF ABSENCE FROM THE WORKPLACE

This act is drawn up on 15 September 2026 in connection with the 
absence of P.S. Ivanov, Sales Manager, from the workplace.

Date of absence: 15 September 2026 (full working day).
Time of absence: 09:00 to 18:00.

Attempts at contact: calls at 10:00 and 14:00 — no answer.

Witness signatures: ___________, ___________

Step 2. Send a Written Demand for Explanation — Separately for Each Day

When: the deadline that matters is one month from the date the offense was discovered (Part 3, Article 193 of the Labor Code). The 2-business-day period is time given to the employee to respond — not time the employer has to send the demand.

How: a signed letter, registered mail with an inventory of contents and delivery confirmation, email with a read receipt, or hand delivery against signature. Important: the demand must be dated and must state the specific date of the absence in question.

If the employee is absent for an extended period and unreachable:

• Send a registered letter to both the registered address and the actual residential address (if known)
• The 2-day period runs from the date of delivery, or from the date the letter is returned undelivered
• Keep proof that delivery was attempted (a postal notice, an email system export)

Response deadline: 2 business days from the date the employee receives the demand (not from the date it was sent).

Sample letter:

Demand for Written Explanation

Pursuant to Article 193 of the Labor Code, you are requested to 
provide a written explanation for your absence from work on 
15 September 2026, within 2 business days of receiving this demand.

Submit your explanation to the head of HR.

Date of demand: 16 September 2026

Critical: if the employee was absent for several days (say, 12, 13, and 14 September), a separate demand is required for each date. Courts treat a single combined demand covering the whole period as a procedural violation (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025; the Eighth KCGJ took the same position earlier, in its ruling of 27 August 2024, No. 88-17089/2024).

Step 3. Receive the Explanation or Draw Up an Act of Refusal

Option A — the employee explains:

• If the explanation shows a valid reason, dismissal is not permitted; the court will review the reason on its merits.
• If the absence is confirmed as unexcused, proceed to the dismissal order.

Option B — the employee does not appear or explain:

• Draw up an Act of Refusal to Provide an Explanation (stating the specific date the explanation covers).
• The act is signed by witnesses and the manager.

Step 4. Issue the Dismissal Order

The order must contain:

• The employee’s full name, position, and department
• The date stated in the order — the current date (the day the order is issued, once the internal review is complete)
• ⚠️ Important: the date of termination (for the employment record book) is the employee’s last actual working day (the day before the first day of absence), not the date the order is issued (Part 3, Article 84.1 of the Labor Code)
• A citation to sub-clause “a,” clause 6, part 1, Article 81 of the Labor Code — this is the ground for dismissal (not Article 193)
• A list of every act of absence with exact dates (act of 15 Sept for 15 Sept, act of 16 Sept for 16 Sept, and so on)
• A note of which dates have explanations on file, and which have an Act of Refusal instead

Example (multiple days of absence):

DISMISSAL ORDER

Dismiss Ivan Petr Sergeevich, Manager, effective 14 September 2026.

Grounds: a single gross violation of labor duties — absenteeism
(sub-clause "a," clause 6, part 1, Article 81 of the Labor Code RF).

Unexcused absences:
— 15 September 2026 (Act of Absence dated 15.09.2026, Act of Refusal
  to Provide Explanation dated 18.09.2026)
— 16 September 2026 (Act of Absence dated 16.09.2026, Act of Refusal
  to Provide Explanation dated 18.09.2026)
— 17 September 2026 (Act of Absence dated 17.09.2026, Act of Refusal
  to Provide Explanation dated 18.09.2026)

Date the order is issued (current date): 18 September 2026
Termination date for the employment record book: 14 September 2026
(last actual working day before the absences began)

Mandatory step: within 3 business days of issuing the dismissal order, the employer must present it to the employee against signature (Part 2, Article 193 of the Labor Code). If the employee is absent or refuses to sign, draw up an Act of Refusal to Acknowledge the Order. Without this, the disciplinary procedure is considered incomplete.

Step 5. Pay the Final Settlement and Issue Documents

On the day of dismissal (no later than the next business day):

• Pay wages for days actually worked
• Pay compensation for unused vacation
• Return the employment record book (or send it by mail if the employee is absent)
• Record in the employment book: “Dismissed for a single gross violation of labor duties — absenteeism, sub-clause ‘a,’ clause 6, part 1, Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” (Error to avoid: citing “Article 193” in the record book is not acceptable)

If the employee is absent and the record book cannot be handed over:

• On the same day, send the employee a registered letter requesting they collect the book, or asking for written consent to mail it (Part 6, Article 84.1 of the Labor Code)
• This protects the employer from liability for a delayed handover
• Keep a copy of the letter and the delivery confirmation

Documents You Need

Common Mistakes That Lead to Reinstatement

Mistake 1: Dismissed without a written demand for explanation. Risk: Court reinstates the employee. Employer fine of 10,000–20,000 rubles (Article 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses; Ruling of the Sixth KCGJ of 14 November 2024).

Mistake 2: The demand for explanation was never sent, or was sent more than a month after the offense was discovered. Risk: Procedure violated, reinstatement likely (Part 3, Article 193 of the Labor Code — a disciplinary sanction cannot be imposed later than one month from discovery). Note: the 2-business-day period is time given to the employee to respond, not time the employer has to send the demand.

Mistake 3: The Act of Absence was signed only by the manager (no witnesses). Risk: The court will not accept the act as adequate evidence of absence. Documenting absenteeism requires independent witness confirmation (Article 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure; case law requires witness testimony when an act is contested).

Mistake 4: The demand was sent verbally or in a chat, with no proof of delivery. Risk: The employee will claim they never received it, and the court will side with them (Ruling of the Moscow City Court of 5 September 2023).

Mistake 5: The order lists several acts, but explanations were not demanded for every date. Risk: The court will find the dismissal unlawful (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025; Ruling of the Eighth KCGJ of 27 August 2024, No. 88-17089/2024).

Mistake 6: The order does not state the exact dates of absence. Risk: The court will conclude the employer is withholding information (Ruling of the Seventh KCGJ of 25 June 2026, No. 88-9000/2026).

Mistake 7: The severity of the offense, the employee’s prior record, and their length of service were not taken into account. Risk: The court finds the dismissal a disproportionate penalty, even where the procedure was followed (Review of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of 9 December 2020; Ruling of the Sixth KCGJ of 20 March 2025, No. 88-5219/2025).

Mistake 8: A remote employee was dismissed for not being in the office, even though remote work had never been cancelled. Risk: The court finds this an abuse of the employer’s right (Ruling of the First KCGJ of 16 June 2025, No. 88-11539/2025).

Mistake 9: During the investigation (before the order is issued), the timesheet immediately shows the code “ПР” (absenteeism). Risk: This can be read as prejudging guilt before the internal review is complete. Correct practice: until an explanation is received and the order is issued, the timesheet should show “НН” (absence for unclear reasons); the code changes to “ПР” only once the dismissal order is issued.

Mistake 10: The workplace was never defined in the employment contract, and the absence report does not state a specific address. Risk: The court finds the absence unproven and overturns the dismissal (Ruling of the Second KCGJ of 24 April 2025, No. 88-11015/2025).

Mistake 11: An employee was dismissed for absenteeism after already giving notice of voluntary resignation and not coming in during the notice period. Risk: The court finds the dismissal unlawful — absence during that period does not qualify as absenteeism (Ruling of the First KCGJ of 1 July 2025, No. 88-15351/2025).

Liability for Procedural Violations

• Administrative fine (Article 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses): 1,000–5,000 rubles for a first violation; 10,000–20,000 rubles, or disqualification of the responsible official for 1–3 years, for a repeat violation.
• Reinstatement: the court orders the employee rehired.
• Back pay: compensation for the period of forced absence.
• Moral damages: additional compensation.

When a Court May Find the Dismissal Disproportionate — Even With a Flawless Procedure

An important clarification from the Supreme Court of Russia: an “empty chair” alone is not sufficient grounds for dismissal (Review of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of 9 December 2020; Ruling of the Sixth KCGJ of 20 March 2025, No. 88-5219/2025).

A court may find the dismissal a disproportionate penalty if:

❌ It was the employee’s first offense

• Years of clean record → dismissal is too severe
• The court may require a reprimand first, with dismissal only for a repeat offense

❌ There were no real adverse consequences

• The employee was absent, but nothing was actually disrupted
• No harm to the company → reinstatement
• (Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 2, clause 39)

❌ There were valid reasons or life circumstances

• A summons from an authority, hospitalization, a road accident on the way to work
• Feeling unwell, even without a certificate (a doctor’s note exists)
• The court finds the reason valid → reinstatement

How an employer can prove the dismissal was justified:

Documenting harm at the time of the absence:

1. An internal memo describing the specific disruption (which report was missed, which contract fell through)
2. A report on consequences stating the loss in rubles, where possible
3. A demand for explanation — required regardless of whether consequences exist
4. The dismissal order — should mention the consequences that occurred (“…taking into account the failed contract dated 15.09.2026…”)

Case Law Summary

Plenum Resolution No. 2 of the Supreme Court of Russia, dated 17 March 2004 (current version): courts frequently reinstate employees. Reinstatement is especially likely when:

• There was no written demand for explanation (Ruling of the Sixth KCGJ of 14 November 2024)
• The one-month discovery deadline was missed, or the employee was not given the full 2 business days to respond (Part 3, Article 193 of the Labor Code)
• The Act of Absence was drawn up without witnesses (Ruling of the Eighth KCGJ of 27 March 2025, No. 88-4807/2025)
• Explanations were not obtained for every day of absence (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025)
• The order does not state the exact dates of absence (Ruling of the Seventh KCGJ of 25 June 2026, No. 88-9000/2026)
• The workplace was never defined in the employment contract (Ruling of the Second KCGJ of 24 April 2025, No. 88-11015/2025)
• There is no evidence of actual harm (Review of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of 9 December 2020)

Reinstatement does NOT occur when:

• Every document was prepared flawlessly (Article 193 of the Labor Code)
• The employee’s explanation does not refute the absence
• Every deadline was scrupulously observed (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025)
• The order states every ground and the exact date of every absence
• Real, negative consequences for the company’s operations are proven (Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 2, clause 39)

The Practical Reality: Why Even a Correct Dismissal Can Still Be Challenged

The 2025–2026 case law trend: cassation courts are becoming stricter about procedural requirements. Every day of absence needs its own act, its own demand for explanation, exact dates in the order, and a clearly defined workplace in the contract (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025; Ruling of the Eighth KCGJ of 27 August 2024, No. 88-17089/2024; Ruling of the Second KCGJ of 24 April 2025, No. 88-11015/2025).

But in practice: this position is applied selectively. Some courts demand strict compliance with the letter of the law; others are more lenient. There is no guaranteed way to make a dismissal bulletproof — following the procedure is simply the safer path.

A warning about the “shortcut.” Facing a risky absenteeism procedure, some employers instead try to pressure the employee into writing a “voluntary” resignation — under duress, or amid an active conflict. That is not a safe alternative: the First KCGJ found exactly this kind of dismissal unlawful, because the resignation letter was not written voluntarily but under the influence of a conflict with management — a legal concept known as a “defect in consent” (porok voli) (Ruling of 7 July 2025, No. 88-18450/2025). A formally correct, handwritten resignation letter does not protect the employer once pressure is proven.

Recommendation: if you want to avoid litigation, always follow the procedure in full, document any real harm, and consider a lesser sanction before a first-time dismissal.

When You Need a Lawyer

1. The employee claims a valid reason — judges review this on its merits. A summons from an authority or a doctor’s note are usually recognized by courts as valid.
2. Multiple absences — meticulous documentation is required: a separate act and a separate demand for each day (Ruling of the Third KCGJ of 20 October 2025, No. 88-16875/2025).
3. This is the first disciplinary sanction — the court may find dismissal disproportionate. A lawyer can help you choose a reprimand instead, or build the case for dismissal on documented harm.
4. The employee is pregnant, on sick leave, or on vacation — there are restrictions on employer-initiated dismissal (Part 1, Article 261 of the Labor Code, for pregnant employees; Part 6, Article 81, for sick leave and vacation). This restriction does not extend to employees with disabilities, who are dismissed on general grounds.
5. The employee has already filed a lawsuit — check whether the dismissal could appear connected to litigation or a complaint to the labor inspectorate, which courts treat as retaliation.
6. The workplace is not defined in the contract — the contract’s wording needs review before any act is drawn up, or the entire document package risks failing in court.
7. You need to prove harm — if the company suffered real losses, they must be documented and referenced in the order.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many explanation demands are needed for a multi-day absence? One for each act of absence. If three acts were drawn up, three separate demands are required, each with its own 2-business-day waiting period. Courts treat a single combined demand covering the whole period as a procedural violation.

Can an employee be dismissed for absenteeism after already giving notice of resignation? No. Once a resignation notice is submitted, the employee is waiting out the two-week notice period. Their absence during that time does not qualify as absenteeism — the employer must either wait for the notice period to end or arrange an earlier termination by agreement.

What must an absence report always include? The specific workplace address and the time of absence. The workplace itself must be clearly defined in the employment contract — otherwise the “absence” cannot be proven as a matter of law.

Can an employer sidestep the risky absenteeism procedure by pressuring an employee to resign “voluntarily” instead? No, not if pressure is involved. If the resignation was written under duress or amid a conflict with management, a court can find this a “defect in consent” and reinstate the employee — even if the letter was handwritten and signed.

What is the limitation period for a labor dispute over dismissal? One month from the date the dismissal order or employment record book is received (Article 392 of the Labor Code). Missing this deadline is one of the most common reasons claims are dismissed.

Read Also

• Fired “By Article” in Russia: Grounds and Appeal — which other Article 81 grounds employers reach for most often, and what they have to prove
• Dismissal for Absenteeism: The Supreme Court’s Rules — why the Supreme Court requires proof of real harm from an absence, not just the fact of it
• The Employee Trap: When an Employer Provokes a Violation — how employers manufacture grounds for dismissal, and why that backfires on them
• Downtime During Redundancy in Russia — another employer tool that carries a high risk of court-ordered reinstatement
• Wrongful Dismissal in Russia: How to Challenge It — the general procedure for any ground: deadlines, where to file, and what you can recover

Need help dismissing an employee for absenteeism? We help employers get the procedure right the first time, so there’s no reinstatement through the courts. Phone consultation is free. Call Veritas, Chelyabinsk.