Violation of legal norms entails punishment and liability established by the legal acts of a particular state, and any violation of the law is an unethical action. However, not all violations of ethical standards are prosecuted by law, therefore their regulation and functioning in society is an area of ​​exclusively spontaneous human activity. Compliance with ethical standards governs public opinion, they are supported by spiritual influence (religious, ideological, propaganda or ethical), and the punishment for their violation is social ostracism, forced marginalization of the norm violator, his exclusion from the team.

Sometimes this punishment is more severe than criminal, because in the latter case a person still finds himself in a new social environment, albeit one with a set of very specific local ethical standards, and in the former he is deprived of his status in society (professional, social), and is being boycotted. The criteria for determining whether an action is ethical or unethical are the concepts “moral/immoral”, “good/bad”, “honest/dishonest”, “commendable/shameful”, “conscientious/unscrupulous”, “deserving approval/condemnation”.

For a person who is a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality, a violation of moral norms is a violation of the foundation of his individuality, personal integrity, a “crime against himself.” However, the maturity of this position and the ability to adhere to it are not inherent in all subjects of ethical relations and not in all situations. For example, violation of ethical standards in adolescents is a consequence of protest against meaningless or unwanted instructions, ignoring social censure as an effective way of punishment for antisocial activities.

The feeling of one’s own “impunity” and the insignificance of norms that are not codified, but tacitly enforced in society, leads to the development of selfish, critical attitudes. Violation of professional ethical standards, in most cases, becomes a consequence of “emotional burnout syndrome,” which is most often found in individuals who, during their work activities, closely interact with a large number of other people. “Professional burnout” is associated with the loss of moral and psychological aspects that should underlie a person’s ethical behavior: with the loss of emotional involvement with other people and the sphere of one’s activity, dehumanization of people, perception of them as units of a system, and not participants in ethical relations with value and significance, loss of adequate self-reflection, desire to remove oneself from the ethical system. The basis for monitoring violations of ethical standards, therefore, is the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bretribution, which will certainly be the result of a person performing any action. “Retribution is an ontological principle of the structure of human existence, expressing the correspondence of moral acts and the benefits received, the return of good for good, evil for evil. The principle of retribution is the basis of law, various provisions on remuneration, rewards that stimulate honest work, benefits, etc.”

Violations of ethical norms vary in severity and subsequent punishment for their violation: universal norms often correspond to legal norms (“thou shalt not kill!”) and have legislative framework, the suppression of religious norms leads to exclusion from a particular community, the imposition of any restrictive measures, depending on the regulations set out in precedent texts; violation of national ethical standards leads to social ostracism, exclusion from the national culture, historical narrative (for example, actions in relation to the recipient Nobel Prize B. L. Pasternak); punishment for violating regional norms is determined by the conductors of local ethics; Violation of professional ethics can lead to exclusion from the team and deprivation of a professional title. Failure to comply with ethical standards within the framework of any jointly operating team introduces disharmony, misunderstanding, and an abundance of communication failures that complicate communication and joint production.

A person spends at least 20% of his life at work. When we come to work, we want to feel comfortable. Unfortunately, not a single working day goes by without stress. Workdays are overshadowed by conflicts between employees. The employer finds himself in a difficult position when it is necessary not only to resolve the conflict, but also to punish the instigator.

Today, many employers include provisions in their organization’s local regulations that address the ethical aspect, for example, the need to behave kindly with clients, treat colleagues with respect, etc. And if the first is the responsibility of the employees and is not subject to discussion, then the second remains on their conscience and is their personal matter.

It is not the employer's responsibility to regulate relations between employees. Does this mean that it is impossible to punish an employee, for example, for criticizing a colleague? Let's look at an example from judicial practice.

Situation

K. worked as deputy director for educational work in an educational institution. During the next meeting, she criticized the work of one of her colleagues, V., and after the meeting expressed her negative attitude towards her during a personal conversation. V., considering that she had been insulted, wrote a memo addressed to the director with a request to bring K. to disciplinary action. The employer issued an order to impose disciplinary action against Deputy Director K. in the form of a reprimand for violating internal rules labor regulations(V work time distracts employees with extraneous conversations, discusses and criticizes the work of colleagues, makes comments regarding the personal and professional qualities of employees). This was not the first order to impose a disciplinary sanction; K. had also previously been subject to disciplinary action.

K. realized that the administration was preparing documents for her dismissal under clause 4 of Art. 42 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Code) (for the employee’s systematic failure to fulfill his duties without good reason), and appealed to the court with a request to remove the last disciplinary sanction from her.

The court of first instance considered the employer’s actions illegal and found that K. had not violated labor discipline.

The employer's order to impose disciplinary liability was canceled. The employer did not agree with the court's decision and appealed it. The regional court upheld the district court’s decision, finding that even if criticism of a colleague violates ethical standards, it is not an offense for which the employee can be subject to disciplinary action.

Arguments of the parties

In her statement of claim, K. asked the court to recognize the order to declare her reprimand illegal, since she had not committed a disciplinary offense. K. explained to the court that the order to impose a penalty on her was issued due to the fact that she allegedly humiliated the honor and dignity of an employee of an educational institution, first at a meeting and then during communication with her. The deputy director argued that she in no way wanted to hurt the honor and dignity of her colleague, but only wanted to find out what complaints she had about her work, and therefore considered the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on the grounds specified in the order to be illegal.

At the court hearing, representatives of the educational institution did not agree with the plaintiff’s claims and asked the court to refuse to satisfy them. At the same time, they explained to the court that during a production meeting K. criticized V., which affected her honor and dignity.

Then, in a personal conversation with V., the deputy director allowed herself to express a negative attitude towards her, which was the reason for V. writing a memo addressed to the director of the educational institution about taking measures against K., which was done. The director of the educational institution was sure that K., with her unworthy behavior, had violated the internal labor regulations of the educational institution. The rules stated that it was forbidden to distract workers from fulfilling their duties. labor responsibilities conversations on extraneous topics not related to work, insult colleagues, discuss and criticize their work, accuse them of ignorance and misunderstanding of the functions assigned to them, job responsibilities. D. was called as a witness, who confirmed that the relationship between K. and V. was tense.

For reference: the employer must provide evidence to the court indicating not only that the employee committed a disciplinary offense, but also that when imposing a penalty, the severity of this offense and the circumstances in which it was committed were taken into account.

Position of the court of first instance

After listening to the explanations of the parties, the testimony of witnesses and examining the case materials, the court found that the basis for issuing the order to announce the reprimand was V.’s memorandum addressed to the director of the educational institution, which stated that K. accused her of inappropriate behavior and distracted her from work. All statements by K. were perceived by V. as an interference in personal life, an insult to personal and business qualities. This circumstance was confirmed at the court hearing by witness D., who said that V. was brought to tears by a conversation with K.

The court considered that the presence of hostile relations between the workers had nothing to do with the performance of one of their work duties.

Thus, the court, having studied and assessed the evidence collected in the case, came to the conclusion that the administration educational institution brought K. to disciplinary action illegally.

The internal labor regulations of an educational institution actually regulate interpersonal relations between employees, and not labor Relations between the employer and the employee, therefore, their violation, according to the court, cannot lead to disciplinary action. The court canceled the order to announce K.'s remarks.

The decision of the cassation court

The administration of the educational institution appealed the decision of the court of first instance. The judicial panel for civil cases of the regional court agreed with the conclusions of the district court. According to the judicial panel, the provisions of the internal labor regulations of an educational institution regulate ethical, interpersonal relations between employees, and therefore their violation is a violation of ethical standards, and not a disciplinary offense for which disciplinary action is possible.

The deputy director for educational work belongs to the category of managers, whose responsibilities include, among other things, coordinating the work teaching staff, as well as submitting comments on the activities of individual employees of the institution for consideration by the director of the institution. Taking into account the above, the regional court considered the conclusion of the court of first instance that the order to bring K. to disciplinary liability in the form of a reprimand for violating internal labor regulations to be correct and upheld the decision.

Exception to the general rule

Despite the fact that for the majority of employees, violation of the rules of conduct in a team cannot be regarded as official misconduct, there are professions in which failure to comply with ethical norms and rules official behavior should be considered a violation of labor discipline rules.

In any case, when imposing a disciplinary sanction, employers are required to comply with the requirements of Art. 198, 199, 200 TK.

You can punish an employee:

For unlawful, culpable failure or improper performance by an employee of his labor duties;

Violation of labor discipline.

In this case, the severity of the disciplinary offense, the circumstances in which it was committed, previous work and the employee’s behavior at work should be taken into account.

Employees who have committed a disciplinary offense, regardless of the application of disciplinary measures, may be subject to deprivation of bonuses, a change in the time of provision labor leave and other measures. The types and procedure for applying these measures should be determined by internal labor regulations, collective agreements, agreements, and other local regulatory legal acts.

Medical worker is individual who has a medical or other education, works in a medical organization whose responsibilities include implementing medical activities, or an individual who is individual entrepreneur and is active in the field of medicine. The main task is to improve health and preserve human life. This ensures careful treatment of each patient. Medical workers, performing a labor function, in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), have certain employee responsibilities and are responsible for violation of labor discipline and internal labor regulations.

When performing their duties, “guardians of health” must comply with the rules of medical ethics. However, there are problems associated with professional ethics medical worker, both internationally and nationally. It is believed that the basic principles of medical ethics were formulated by Hippocrates. These principles are as follows1: 1. The principle of non-harm, concern for the benefit of the patient, the dominant interests of the patient. 2. The principle of careful informing the patient, allowing him to be misinformed. 3. The principle of respect for life, a negative attitude towards euthanasia, assistance in suicide, and abortion. 4. Obligation to refrain from intimate relationships with patients. 5. The principle of medical confidentiality and confidentiality. 6. Commitments to teachers. 7. Commitment to impart knowledge to students and consult with colleagues. 8. Commitments to professional and moral self-improvement and decent behavior. It is obvious that the principles specified by Hippocrates put the rights and interests of citizens at the forefront. By examining the legal doctrine, a certain picture of the professional ethics of medical workers emerges. I.V. Prihoda, A.A. Rybalchenko in his work “Fundamentals of Medical Ethics and Deontology” note that for the optimal implementation of the principles of medical deontology, the following conditions are necessary: ​​vocation, sense of tact, intelligence, citizenship. A medical worker must always remember about the patient, have the ability to conquer and subjugate the patient’s soul2. In addition, researcher T.A. Kornaukhova agrees with the principles of Hippocrates and believes that the main principle of the Hippocratic model of medical ethics is the maxim “do no harm.” This principle acts as a regulator of the civil component of a doctor’s professional ethics3. I also investigated this problem

V. N. Saperov in his work “Bioethics or medical ethics? Basic principles of medical ethics”, where he points out that the principles of professional ethics of medical workers contain the following principles: “The main thing is to do no harm”, “Do good”, the principle of respect for patient autonomy and the principle of justice1.

In addition to the above researchers, the problem of medical ethics has been studied by such scientists as Yaroslavtseva A.V., Ganshin I.B., Shergeng N.A. and others. Turning to international acts regulating the professional ethics of medical workers, it must be said that very much attention is paid to this issue considerable attention. Thus, Article 3 of the Global Code of the World Health Organization (hereinafter referred to as WHO) on the practice of international recruitment of health personnel stipulates that the health of all people is the most important condition for achieving peace and security2. In addition, the WHO, in its international code of medical ethics, emphasizes that3: A DOCTOR MUST always maintain the highest professional standards. THE PHYSICIAN MUST not allow self-interest to interfere with the freedom and independence of professional decisions, which must be made solely in the best interests of the patient. THE PHYSICIAN SHOULD prioritize compassion and respect for the human dignity of the patient and be fully responsible for all aspects of medical care, regardless of his own professional specialization. A DOCTOR MUST be honest in his dealings with patients and colleagues and deal with those of his colleagues who show incompetence or are found to be deceptive.

These responsibilities correspond to the principles of ethics established in his time by Hippocrates, where human interests are the highest value. Regarding the regulation of the issue of professional ethics at the national level, it should be noted that the Russian Federation also pays great attention to this. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a person, his rights and freedoms are the highest value, and everyone has the right to health care and medical care4. These human and civil rights are exercised through the activities of medical organizations and medical workers, who must comply with the rules of professional ethics.

Thus, the Code of Professional Ethics for Physicians of the Russian Federation stipulates that a doctor is obliged to provide high-quality, effective and safe medical care. He is obliged to take into account the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of various diagnostic and therapeutic methods. If the medical organization does not have the necessary conditions and resources, the doctor is obliged to refer the patient to the appropriate medical institution1. In our opinion, every medical worker must perform his duties efficiently and effectively, taking into account the specifics of each specific situation. In addition, considerable attention is paid to medical confidentiality.

Article 8 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Physicians of the Russian Federation contains the rule that medical confidentiality applies to everything that became known to the doctor while performing his professional duty. Disclosure of information constituting medical confidentiality is not permitted without the permission of the patient or his legal representative, including after the death of a person, except in cases provided for by Russian legislation. IN this act, as in others regulating the professional ethics of medical workers at various levels, the highest value is the honor and dignity of the patient, and it is stated that when treating, all the characteristics of his personality should be taken into account and respect for his personal life and the right to confidentiality2. In addition, it should be noted that a draft Code of Professional Ethics for Medical Workers has been developed, which establishes the obligation conscientious fulfillment their labor functions3.

There is also the federal law“On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens,” which, in turn, establishes the rules of professional ethics of a medical worker. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that failure to fulfill any obligation by an employee working under an employment contract, or improper performance labor function in accordance with the Labor Code of the Russian Federation entails disciplinary liability in accordance with Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation4. Likewise, failure by a medical worker to comply with professional ethics standards provides for disciplinary liability for evasion or poor performance of his duties5. But in the latter case, the medical worker may be subject to administrative and criminal liability in addition to disciplinary liability, since the life and health of a person is serious. The Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses establishes administrative liability in Article 13.11 “Violation of the procedure established by law for the collection, storage, use or dissemination of information about citizens (personal data)”6, and Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for liability for “Violation of privacy”7, where Inviolability of private life means the disclosure of information constituting a medical secret by a person to whom this information became known in connection with the performance of his official or professional duties. However, despite the responsibility, medical workers do not comply with established standards, which is a huge problem. There is a wide debate on this issue. Thus, the Khabarovsk Regional Court issued an appeal ruling No. 33-5145/2016 dated August 12, 2016 in case No. 33-5145/2016 in the case of recognition of an order to impose disciplinary liability for failure to comply with continuity in treatment, violation of ethical and deontological standards of behavior doctor is illegal. By the decision of the Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk dated April 26, 2016, the claims were rejected.

The judicial panel of the Khabarovsk Regional Court determined that the decision of the Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk dated April 26, 2016 in a civil case on a claim to declare the order to impose disciplinary liability illegal, to collect compensation for moral damage, is left unchanged, and the appeal is not satisfied1. So, the professional ethics of medical workers is an important component of the legal norms governing their activities, since citizens carrying out labor activities in the field of protecting human health and life must strictly comply with the established rules for quality and professional help. To ensure compliance with the rules of professional ethics of medical workers, we believe that it is necessary to tighten the rules establishing liability for their violation

F.F. KARIMOVA

First, we should talk about what ethics is. From the definition offered by dictionaries, we can draw a generalized conclusion that ethics is a philosophical doctrine about morality, about the rules of human behavior. Consequently, professional ethics is a system of norms and rules of conduct for a specialist.

Typically, ethical standards refer to unspoken rules, but some large companies, such as JSC Russian Railways or JSC Gazprom, these rules are consolidated into a single document - the so-called “Code of Corporate Ethics”.

The general principles of ethical behavior of employees in the documents of different companies are approximately the same and boil down to the following: compliance with legislation and internal regulations of the company, adherence to high moral principles, responsible attitude to job responsibilities, maintaining a positive reputation of the company, respectful attitude towards colleagues and clients, maintaining confidentiality of information, and more.

Returning to the issue of dismissal. The employee violated the norms of corporate ethics, and it is impossible to dismiss him on this basis. What should be done, and what should a violation of corporate ethics be expressed in order for dismissal to become possible from the point of view of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation?

1. Disclosure of trade secrets (subparagraph b of paragraph 6 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Decision of the Kirovsky District Court of the city of Yekaterinburg No. 2-1942/19(11) dated April 27, 2011.

Plaintiff C.E.V. filed a lawsuit against Domofon Service LLC for recognition of the dismissal as illegal, reinstatement at work, recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence, and compensation for moral damages. In support of the claim, she indicated that in the period from 04/01/2010 to 02/04/2011 she worked ... at Domofon Service LLC, on 02/04/2011 she was fired at the initiative of the employer under Article 81, paragraph 6, subparagraph “c” for disclosing a trade secret. In violation of Article 11 of the Federal Law “On Trade Secrets”, when she was hired, she was not introduced to confidential information, and she does not know whether Domofon Service LLC has taken measures to protect trade secrets; she did not sign any agreements on non-disclosure of trade secrets. She was also not informed of the order to terminate the employment contract. The work record book was sent to her only on 02/15/2011. The plaintiff asks to recognize her dismissal under subparagraph “c” of paragraph 6 illegal, oblige Domofon Service LLC to change the wording of the grounds for dismissal to dismissal for at will according to point 3Article 77 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation , to recover from the defendant in her favor the average earnings during the forced absence.

At the court hearing, the plaintiff supported the claims.

The representative of the defendant at the court hearing did not admit the claims and explained that the plaintiff signed an employment contract and was supposed not to disclose information belonging to the employer, the information became available to third parties without the consent of the director, the information is confidential, economic and protected. It is necessary to recover damages from the employee for disclosing a trade secret.

In its decision, the court stated the following.

According to paragraph 43 of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2 “On the application by the courts of the Russian Federation of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation” in the event of an employee challenging dismissal under subparagraph “c” of paragraph 6 of part one of Article 81 of the Code, the employer is obliged to provide evidence indicating that the information that the employee disclosed in accordance with current legislation relate to state, official, commercial or other secrets protected by law, or to the personal data of another employee, this information became known to the employee in connection with the performance of his job duties, and he undertook not to disclose such information.

In accordance with Article 11 of the Federal Law of July 29, 2004 No. 98-FZ “On Trade Secrets”, in order to protect the confidentiality of information, the employer is obliged to familiarize, against receipt, an employee whose access to information constituting a trade secret is necessary for him to perform his job duties, with a list of information constituting a trade secret, the owners of which are the employer and his counterparties; familiarize the employee, against signature, with the trade secret regime established by the employer and with the penalties for violating it; create an employee the necessary conditions to comply with the trade secret regime established by the employer.

This court decision shows the main mistake made by employers who want to establish a trade secret regime in an organization. The absence of provisions on trade secrets, a list of information constituting a secret, or failure to familiarize the employee with them are grounds for declaring dismissal on the above grounds illegal.

2. Dismissal due to loss of confidence.

Decision of the Volgodonsk District Court Rostov region in case No. 2-2093/11 dated 10/14/2011.

R.O.A. filed a claim in court, taking into account the clarifications adopted by the court toIstok-design LLC on declaring the dismissal illegal, changing the wording of the dismissal, collecting wages and compensation for moral damage, indicating that on 06/01/2004 he was hired at Istok-design LLC as a manager.
From 08/01/2006 transferred to senior managerIstok-Design LLC . From 02/02/2010 R.O.A. transferred to acting director. With R.O.A. an employment contract without a number dated 02/02/2010 was concluded with probationary period for six months. On August 2, 2010, by order No. 56-k, he was appointed director on a permanent basis. Additionally, an employment contract with R.O.A. was not concluded. Wage R.O.A. was installed as director of Istok-Design LLC. in the amount of 45,000 rubles per month. 03/02/2011 R.O.A. fired fromIstok-Design LLC in connection with the commission of guilty actions by an employee directly servicing monetary or commodity assets, giving grounds for loss of confidence in him on the part of the employer, the basis of paragraph 7 of part oneArticle 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation . Believes the dismissal was illegal, since he was not the person directly servicing material assets, the agreement on financial liability with R.O.A. was not concluded. The duties of R.O.A. work on receiving, storing, transporting, and distributing products was not included. He did not have access to the furniture warehouse, in cash didn't give orders. The warehouse was managed by a manager with whom a liability agreement was concluded. By virtue of the agreement concluded with R.O.A. employment contract, his duties did not include control over financial means and material assets. The employer did not inform R.O.A. what his guilty actions were, which resulted in the loss of trust in him on the part of the employer.

Sh.M.N. and M.I.I., representatives of Istok-Design LLC, acting under powers of attorney, objected to the satisfaction of the claims, it was explained to the court that R.O.A. dismissed from the position of director of Istok-Design LLC due to the discovery in March 2011 of a shortage of furniture in the warehouse and a shortage of accessories in the warehouse identified on March 28, 2011. R.O.A. was the financially responsible person for the material assets entrusted to him in the accessories warehouse, since when he was transferred from the position of manager and senior manager to the position of director, he did not transfer the accessories warehouse to anyone. Based on the identified facts of shortages in the furniture warehouse and accessories warehouse, the founders of Istok-Design LLC decided to dismiss R.O.A. for the commission of guilty actions by an employee directly servicing monetary or commodity assets, giving grounds for loss of confidence in him by the employer.

As established by the court, the basis for the dismissal of R.O.A. was the commission of guilty actions by an employee directly servicing monetary or commodity assets, if these actions give rise to a loss of confidence in him on the part of the employer.

Labor responsibilities of R.O.A. regulated by the employment contract, the director’s job description, the charter of Istok-Design LLC, also 10/19/2005 with R.O.A. an agreement was concluded on full financial responsibility as a manager in connection with the maintenance of material assets in the accessories warehouse. When the plaintiff was transferred to the position of director, he did not transfer the specified warehouse of accessories to other financially responsible persons, which is not disputed by the plaintiff.

At the time of dismissal under clause 7 of part 1Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation The plaintiff worked as a director of Istok-Design LLC.

As follows from the employment contract dated 02/02/2010, job description director of Istok-Design LLC, the charter of Istok-Design LLC, the plaintiff, while performing the duties of a director, was not a person directly servicing material assets. Subordinate to the plaintiff were financially responsible persons who, directly due to direct labor duties, carried out maintenance of material assets.

According to paragraph 45 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2, courts must keep in mind that termination of an employment contract with an employee under paragraph 7 of part one of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation due to loss of trust is possible only in relation to employees directly servicing monetary or commodity assets (reception, storage, transportation, distribution, etc.), and provided that they committed such guilty actions that gave the employer grounds for losing confidence in them.

From the order on the application of disciplinary sanctions R.O.A. in the form of dismissal, it is not seen for any guilty actions that give rise to the loss of the employer’s trust in him, the plaintiff will be subject to disciplinary action in the form of dismissal, his fault in failure to fulfill his job duties.

The claims were satisfied.

In most cases, when considering this category of cases, the court sides with the plaintiff, making a decision in his favor. The grounds for satisfying the claims are similar, namely, the employer dismisses due to loss of trust an employee who is not financially responsible, or cannot clearly indicate what actions of the employee caused the loss of trust.

The Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not contain information about which employees are financially responsible, therefore, when resolving this issue, they turn to Resolution of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated December 31, 2002 No. 85, which defines a list of works for the performance of which an agreement on full financial liability can be concluded. This is indicated by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in Resolution No. 2 of March 17, 2004. As noted earlier, paragraph 45 of this resolution instructs the courts to take into account that termination of an employment contract with an employee under paragraph 7 of part one Article 81 Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with loss of trust is possible only in relation to employees directly servicing monetary or commodity assets (reception, storage, transportation, distribution, etc.), and provided that they committed such guilty actions that gave the employer grounds for loss trust in them.

Another reason for dismissal may be the commission of an act that discredits the honor of an employee and applies to employees law enforcement. This basis provided, for example, by paragraph 1 of Article 41.7 of the Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation”.

Decision of the Leningradsky District Court of the city of Kaliningrad No. 2-5621/2010 dated December 14, 2010.

Plaintiff P.V.N. filed a lawsuit against the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee under the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation for (...) to declare illegal order No. 7 of the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation” and paragraph 14 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for committing an offense that discredits the honor of a prosecutor’s employee.

On the merits of the order, he explained that since (...) he was on a business trip in Moscow. DD.MM.YYYY at about 7 p.m., he, together with the investigators of the investigative group R. and I., arrived at Pulkovo airport, where he purchased air tickets. After purchasing air tickets, while waiting for the flight, he and R. bought a can of beer at a kiosk in the airport building. Initially he explained that he carried a can of beer on board, where he opened it and began to drink it. Then he explained that they started drinking beer in the airport building, taking two or three sips, then went through pre-flight inspection and boarded the plane, holding open cans of beer in their hands. There were no comments from airport workers or flight attendants. No one informed them that drinking drinks they brought with them on the said flight was not allowed. The plaintiff and two other employees took their seats, buckled up, then took out the cans of beer they had brought with them, took a couple of sips, and were approached by the flight attendant of the said flight, E., who said that “this is prohibited on board her plane.” The plaintiff asked why, after which E., without explanation, began to snatch the cans directly from the hands of the plaintiff and R., dousing his and R.’s outer clothing. The plaintiff immediately gave her the jar, fulfilling her demands. The plaintiff asked to be escorted to the aircraft commander, but he was refused. About 10 minutes later, three police officers entered the plane. None of them introduced themselves or presented any identification. When R. asked what would happen if we did not comply with their demands, he explained that he would use physical force. After which R. presented his service ID. After presenting the ID, the police officers stepped aside. The plaintiff, R. and I. refused to leave the plane, motivating their actions by the absence of any violations on their part. The plaintiff believes that no illegal actions on his part occurred on the ship.

Representative of the defendant by proxy O.Yu.M. at the court hearing the claim was not recognized in full. On the merits of the claim, he explained that the plaintiff’s dismissal was lawful and justified.

When considering this case, the court saw in the actions of the plaintiff an act that discredited the honor of an employee of the prosecutor's office.

The claims were denied.

Another circumstance that serves as a basis for dismissal is the so-called conflict of interest.

Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court in case No. 33-4944 dated 03/06/2014.

I. filed a lawsuit against the Avtodor Group of Companies to invalidate the entry in the work book, declare the grounds for dismissal illegal, and change the wording of the dismissal.

In support of his claims, the plaintiff referred to the fact that he worked for the defendant in the position of (...) Department of Design, Technical Policy and innovative technologies, (...) was fired due toclause 7.1 of part 1 of article 81 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The plaintiff considers his dismissal illegal and unfounded.

The plaintiff's representatives supported the claims at the court hearing.

The court of first instance established that by order of (...) year No. (...) I. was hired at the Avtodor Group of Companies from (...) year to the Department of Design, Technical Policy and Innovative Technologies for the position (. ..) department.

By order of (...) year No. (...) I. (...) was dismissed from the post of Deputy Director of the Department of Design, Technical Policy and Innovative Technologies forclause 7.1 of part 1 of article 81 Labor Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the failure to take measures to prevent or resolve a conflict of interest to which he is a party, which gives rise to a loss of confidence in the employee on the part of the employer.

The grounds for dismissal were: presentation of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation dated September 13, 2013 “On eliminating violations of anti-corruption legislation”, explanatory note dated (...) year, commission protocol dated (...) on the application of penalties, recommendation of the Commission for Compliance with Requirements official conduct of employees and resolution of conflicts of interest in the Avtodor Group of Companies.

Based on the results of the audit, it was revealed that in the information about his income, property and property-related liabilities for (...) the year, the plaintiff did not indicate information about ownership of shares in the authorized capitals of NPP YuzhDorNII LLC, Morand LLC, Pallada LLC ", as well as information about the registration of the plaintiff as an individual entrepreneur.

In addition, the court established and the case materials confirm that, in accordance with the extracts from the Unified state register legal entities NPP YuzhDorNII LLC is active legal entity, and I. as of (...) year is a co-founder of NPP YuzhDorNII LLC, Morand LLC and Pallada LLC, evidence is in orderArticle 56 The plaintiff did not present the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to refute the court's conclusions.

The judicial panel finds that the procedure for dismissing the plaintiff from the position of the defendant was followed, the disciplinary sanction in the form of dismissal was carried out within the period from the date of receipt of information about the commission of an offense, confirmed during the audit, explanations from the plaintiff were requested (...) years, in connection with which the court rightfully rejected the plaintiff’s claim to invalidate the entry in the work book, recognize the grounds for dismissal as illegal, and change the wording of the dismissal.

To summarize, we can say the following. The rules of corporate ethics, unspoken or approved by local regulations, are essentially rules of conduct and are advisory in nature. Violation of the rules of corporate ethics is not grounds for dismissal of an employee.

Anna Filina, senior legal consultant at GS EL - LAW LLC:

Violation of the rules of corporate ethics often becomes a reason for bringing an employee to disciplinary liability. More often, penalties are imposed on employees in the form of comments or reprimands, but there are cases when a violation of the rules of corporate ethics becomes the basis for dismissal under paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation - repeated failure by an employee to fulfill work duties without good reason, if he has a disciplinary sanction.

When considering disputes about dismissal on the specified grounds, the employer must prove exactly what actions that violate the rules of corporate ethics and at what time were committed by the employee, how these rules are established, and whether the employee is familiar with them. To do this, the employer can provide memos, written customer complaints, local regulations, witness statements, and the like as evidence. An example of how an employer was unable to provide evidence satisfactory to the court is the Decision of the Isilkul City Court of the Omsk Region dated February 16, 2012 in case No. 2-116/2012. State-financed organization Healthcare of the Omsk region "Isilkul Central District Hospital" fired senior nurse M.L.N. under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. The employer blamed the employee for systematic failure to fulfill her job duties, among which he singled out a violation of the rules of ethics of a medical worker, expressed in a discussion in public place working moments, which, according to the employer, led to disorganization and nervousness of the clinic staff. As evidence, the employer presented a report from nurses about M.L.N.’s inappropriate behavior, as well as a number of witness statements. In particular, the head nurse of the hospital testified that “in April 2011, she received an oral statement from the doctor, FULL NAME1, that M.L.N. raised her voice at the doctor in the presence of a nurse, about which she personally remarked to M.L.N. There were also complaints from the clinic nurses that the head nurse M.L.N. behaves incorrectly. She received information that the head nurse of the clinic, M.L.N. V public transport discusses the issues that are discussed at planning meetings in the clinic, thereby violating the rules of ethics for a medical professional.”

However, the court in its decision indicated that the indicated witnesses interrogated at the court hearing could not explain why the report was presented in general phrases, to whom specifically from the staff M.L.N. was rude, when and where this happened. The court considered that the court was not provided with evidence of exactly what “actions the plaintiff committed that violated the rules of ethics of a medical worker and what moments and in what public place she discussed work issues that lead to disorganization and nervousness of the clinic staff.” The court ruled in favor of the employee, satisfying her claim in full, declaring the dismissal illegal and reinstating her in her position.

However, in judicial practice there are court decisions that are positive for the employer. K.D. filed a lawsuit against Banca Intesa CJSC to declare the disciplinary sanction and compensation for moral damage illegal and cancel it. By order of the bank, the plaintiff was subject to disciplinary liability in the form of a reprimand for violating a number of points in the job description, as well as violating Article 4 of the Code of Corporate Conduct and the section “Principles of Conduct in Relations with Employees” of the Code of Corporate Ethics, which resulted in rudeness towards bank employees. The employer was able to confirm the fact of K.D.’s unethical behavior. with bank employees during the period of requesting explanations from him regarding the violations of information processing. At the same time, the employer submitted local regulations to the court: the Code of Corporate Ethics of Banca Intesa CJSC, according to which the employee must respect the personality and human dignity of each employee, and the Bank’s Code of Corporate Conduct, which establishes that representatives and employees must avoid in a workplace that is not characterized by integrity and the utmost respect for the dignity and morals of each employee. The court took into account the provisions of these acts when making its decision. It is also necessary to note that the employer fully complied with the procedure for bringing the employee to disciplinary liability. Therefore, the Basmanny District Court of Moscow rejected K.D. in satisfying his claim, and the Moscow City Court left this decision unchanged, the appeal of K.D. without satisfaction (Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated May 22, 2013 in case No. 11-11717).

Artem Denisov, managing partner of the Genesis law firm, candidate of legal sciences:

In general, the colleague’s informative article is aimed more at a formal approach to the study of such a phenomenon as corporate ethics and generalization of judicial practice precisely on a formal basis. The statement that the rules of corporate ethics, unspoken or approved by local regulations, are essentially rules of conduct and are advisory in nature. Violation of the rules of corporate ethics is not grounds for dismissal of an employee.

Conventionally, one can divide the manifestation of the phenomenon of corporate ethics into two frameworks of relations. First: it can be considered as conditions on the behavior of employees within the framework corporate structure, where it is expressed by issuing a local labor act. Second: mandatory conditions for employee compliance within professional communities, for example, legal education, audit organizations, and so on, where compliance with corporate ethics and rules is a condition and guarantee of proper performance of job duties and is the basis for dismissal. They are established both within the framework of industry laws and within the framework of local acts.

In the first case, we can consider the norm when, as an additional basis for terminating an employment contract with the head of an organization on the basis clause 13 of part 1 of article 81 And Article 278 The Labor Code of the Russian Federation indicates in the contract a violation of the requirements of corporate ethics ( code of ethics organization).

The review of judicial practice on these legal relations is quite extensive and it is the application of these articles of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in conjunction with the norms of corporate ethics that ensures the proper dismissal procedure in the event of a violation of the norms of corporate behavior by the dismissed person.

If we consider the second case and use Federal Law No. 63-FZ of May 31, 2002 “On advocacy and the legal profession in the Russian Federation” as an example, then the grounds for terminating an employment contract with an assistant lawyer are not only the grounds listed in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Also, the grounds for which an employment contract with an assistant lawyer is terminated and the assistant is expelled from the legal assistants are the case of failure or improper performance by the assistant lawyer of his professional duties or failure to comply with decisions of corporate norms regulating the activities of the legal profession.

In general, the concept of corporate ethics in Russian legislation is new, but despite this, this phenomenon is a fairly powerful regulator of employee behavior, to which various sanctions can be applied, including dismissal.

Tatyana Bekreneva, lawyer:

The moral requirements of official relations, or otherwise corporate ethics, have certain features. And although the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not have a clear definition of the concept of corporate ethics, nevertheless, the rules of corporate ethics include certain requirements for employee behavior, namely, requirements, non-compliance with which is a disciplinary offense. It is difficult to agree with the author that these requirements are advisory in nature. Giving an example of a legal dispute about dismissal for disclosing a trade secret, that is, essentially agreeing that the rule on non-disclosure of trade secrets is a rule of corporate ethics, the author at the same time in his conclusions indicates that one cannot be fired for violating the rules of corporate ethics, which is an obvious contradiction. Especially considering that violation of the above rule is grounds for dismissal in accordance with the Labor Code (clause “ V» paragraph 5 of Article 81).

A clear understanding of moral requirements, that is, the moral guidelines of the organization’s activities, is necessary for the coordinated work of all departments. It seems that the legislator should determine the criteria for compliance of these moral rules with the requirements of the law, as well as with the requirements of reasonableness and fairness. It is important that, like any rule, the rule of corporate ethics must be reliably protected by law, local regulations, conditions established in employment contract, and is also supported by real actions of the employer to force compliance with it - punishments, since the establishment of rules requires not only clear recording, but also sanctions for their violation. In the charters, rules, codes of corporate ethics or other local regulations, which the employee becomes familiar with when applying for a job under his personal signature, the employer is obliged to prescribe a clear, reasonable rule of conduct that the employee is obliged to follow, indicating that failure to comply with this rule is equivalent to a violation labor discipline. At the same time, it is important that the norms they contain do not worsen the rights of workers in comparison with the current labor legislation.

The law establishes that employees who fail to fulfill or improperly fulfill their job duties, which include the obligation to comply with corporate regulations, bear disciplinary liability. Of course, you cannot, for example, fire a person with the wording in the order: “For violation of corporate ethics.” You cannot write in your work book: “Dismissed for violating corporate ethics.” Dismissal for violating the rules that relate to the rules of corporate ethics presupposes compliance with the dismissal procedure established by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, indicating in the order and work book the legal basis for dismissal (clause 14 of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 16, 2003 No. 225 “On work books"). But if a violation of these rules actually occurs, the employer, in accordance with Articles 192-193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, is obliged to request an explanatory note from the employee; if it is not provided, a corresponding act is drawn up, after which the employee can be fired.

One cannot but agree that if you correctly record the relevant requirements, you will correctly formalize everything Required documents to bring an employee to disciplinary liability, not a single court recognizes the employer’s demands as far-fetched and discriminatory. Firstly, all rules must be recorded in a local act. Otherwise, there is no reason for the employer to demand anything from employees and then punish them for non-compliance. We cannot agree with the author of the article that the presence of unspoken rules of behavior can influence the issues of holding workers accountable - labor legislation does not provide for such a thing as unspoken rules. Therefore, in the event of a dispute, the employer will have to prove that he familiarized the employee with the rules of corporate ethics (obligation to not disclose trade secrets, obligation to comply with the dress code, for example, by railway or air transport workers). Secondly, when the employer sets the requirements corporate culture moderation and reasonableness are important, real requirements must be recorded. Thirdly, when punishing non-compliance with the rules, the provisions must be strictly followed articles 192-193 Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Otherwise, the risk of recognizing the order as illegal, as well as the local act, increases, since if employers violate the norms Article 372 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation on the procedure for approving local acts, this gives the employee the opportunity to challenge them, or challenge the actions of the employer based on the illegal provisions of the local act. But basically, disputes related to violations of corporate ethics encountered in judicial practice can be divided into two types:

Challenging a disciplinary sanction;

Reinstatement in the event of dismissal for systematic violation of official duties (clause 5 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Thus, taking into account the above, it is hardly possible to agree with the author of the article that violation of the rules of corporate ethics cannot be grounds for the dismissal of an employee. But it is quite obvious that issues of corporate ethics require special legal elaboration, since corporate ethics is increasingly becoming part of the general policy of the employer.

Vladimir Alistarkhov, legal expert:

An employee cannot be fired for violating corporate ethics, but the author of the article proposes to figure out “what should be the violation of corporate ethics in order for dismissal to become possible from the point of view of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation?”

The very formulation of this question already contradicts the norms of the current labor legislation.

Labor legislation, and in particular Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, directly provides for the grounds on which an employee can be dismissed at the initiative of the employer.

The grounds for dismissing an employee at the initiative of the employer have an exhaustive list, and, accordingly, the dismissal order must clearly state this basis, indicating the article of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation under which the employee is dismissed.

Consideration of the dismissal of an employee at the initiative of the employer through the prism of the code of corporate ethics is a kind of “tautology” of the procedure for considering the dismissal of an employee on the grounds provided for by law.

For example, for the disclosure of a secret, access to which is limited by law and liability is provided for - why then consider violating the norms of the code of corporate ethics when deciding on the dismissal of an employee?

Currently, there is no judicial practice in which the court would use the fact of violation of corporate ethics as necessary evidence in a case of dismissal of an employee.

Required list evidence base for cases of dismissal of employees has long been formed, and if it exists, the employer does not need to be additionally guided in court by the violation of corporate ethics standards on the part of the employee.

The judicial practice cited by the author of the article shows that to dismiss an employee at the initiative of the employer, various evidence is presented, but not once is any information about a violation of corporate ethics used as evidence, since this is not necessary.

At the same time, the current absence of judicial practice in which a violation of corporate ethics is considered by the court as necessary evidence does not mean that in the future courts will not be able to take into account this kind of evidence to justify the dismissal of an employee by the employer, but for these purposes, it is likely that changes will be required to labor legislation.

The conclusion of the author of the article is correct that the rules of corporate ethics are advisory in nature and cannot be a basis for dismissing an employee, but the question remains whether violations of the rules of corporate ethics can become the basis for the application of other disciplinary measures (in addition to dismissal), which seems more realistic .

Natalia Plastinina, head of the legal support sector:

I do not entirely agree with the author’s conclusion that the rules of corporate ethics are essentially rules of conduct and are advisory in nature, and violation of these rules is not grounds for dismissal of an employee. Based on the dispositive norms of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and the norms of other regulatory acts, the employer has the right to establish at his enterprise both standards of behavior and style of clothing (uniforms, for example), and the possibility of smoking in designated and equipped places or a complete ban on smoking. In most cases of violations of the requirements of corporate ethics and business style, it is best, as practice has shown, for employers to first apply punishment in the form of a reprimand, reprimand, and if penalties “accumulate” - dismiss under paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (for repeated failure by the employee to comply without valid reasons for work duties, if he has a disciplinary sanction). And the success of applying this practice was also proven by court decisions (see, for example, the decision of the Orenburg District Court of the Orenburg Region dated December 1, 2011 , in which the court concludes that the employee’s actions involved a violation of the dress code, which is a violation of the established local regulations of this enterprise rules).

Despite the fact that employers more often punish an employee for not matching his uniform, business style established in the organization, penalties for violations are also often business ethics. As a rule, the violation consists of rudeness by an employee towards a client of the enterprise or inappropriate behavior with colleagues. And the courts, in the absence of identified violations in the procedure for bringing an employee to disciplinary liability, find the actions of employers to punish the employee for violating the rules of ethics lawful.

However, too often employers make offensive mistakes when punishing employees who have violated the rules of ethics, behavior and appearance at work. So, for example, according to the conclusions of the court set out in the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of the city of Lipetsk dated August 11, 2009 and the ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court in case No. 33-.../09 , the court concluded that the employee had repeatedly failed to fulfill his job duties without good reason, which was reflected in unacceptable behavior towards the company’s clients and his colleagues. However, due to the fact that the employee committed such behavior not in the performance of his official duties, and it did not entail negative consequences For the employer, as an organization, the court considered dismissal to be a disproportionate punishment for ethical violations and reinstated the employee at work.

It should be noted that the legality of punishing an employee for violating the rules of ethics and dress code adopted in the organization will be ensured only under the combination of the following conditions:

All employer requirements for communication ethics, behavior style, appearance employees must be recorded in local and other acts of the employer, be clear and understandable. The local act must be adopted in accordance with the requirements of labor legislation and properly executed as a document. If these requirements are not met, there will be no basis for punishing employees, since there will be no misconduct on the part of the employee. For example, due to flaws in the execution of a local act establishing the employer’s requirements for the uniform of clothing of employees, the court declared the punishment illegal due to its groundlessness (see the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Murmansk dated 09/02/2010) .

When bringing employees to disciplinary liability for violation of ethics, it is necessary to comply with the requirements of Articles 192-193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for the procedure for recording, investigating the offense and applying punishment for violation of discipline (including in terms of the adequacy of the applied punishment to the offense). Thus, from the decision of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Yekaterinburg dated November 26, 2010 in case No. 2-3204/2010 it follows that, despite the correctness of recording the employer’s requirements for the appearance of employees, the recording of the employee’s misconduct was incomplete, which the court regarded as a violation of the requirements of Article 193 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for the procedure for bringing to disciplinary liability, and the punishment of the employee was declared illegal.

The punishment must be adequate to the act, that is, meet the requirements of Part 5 of Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation: when imposing a disciplinary sanction, the severity of the offense committed and the circumstances under which it was committed must be taken into account.

Thus, the basis provided for in paragraph 5 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, not listed in the article, in order to punish workers for violating the rules of ethics in practice is used much more often than, for example, subparagraph “c” of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labor Code Code of the Russian Federation (disclosure of secrets protected by law (state, commercial, official and other) that became known to an employee in connection with the performance of his job duties, including disclosure of personal data of another employee) or paragraph 7 of part one of Article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (for committing guilty actions by an employee directly servicing monetary or commodity assets, if these actions give rise to a loss of confidence in him on the part of the employer).

Professional ethics and business communication in an organizational environment are important components of industrial relations that influence economic activity and the stability of the enterprise, and their role is difficult to overestimate. Compliance with professional ethics and skills of competent conversation in a team, with partners and clients affect the success of internal and external activities the company, preserve its image and reputation.

Business conversation

Business communication implies principles and norms aimed at achieving mutually beneficial results. Regardless of the position and functions of the employee, he must be able to clearly express and argue his own thoughts, analyze the thinking of his partner, and form a critical attitude towards relevant opinions and proposals.

As the examples show business communication, a prerequisite is to conduct a conversation and adjust its process, the ability to listen to the interlocutor, persuade and exert a positive influence, create a favorable atmosphere conducive to productive activity and elimination conflict situations, maintaining the standards of professional ethics.

Telephone ethics

Intonation is of primary importance during a telephone conversation, especially at the beginning and end. Any speech errors, procrastination, or stuttering cause tension or irritation in the interlocutor. And if the tone does not match the content of the information, the interlocutor is inclined to trust the intonation.

Before calling, you should formulate the task as briefly as possible and make the necessary notes. After connecting, you need to introduce yourself, indicating your name and company name, and then check with the interlocutor whether he has enough time.

Of course, regardless of your emotional state, you should avoid inappropriate behavior in such a way as to openly express your own emotions. But excessive politeness in the form of lengthy thanks can cause impatience and irritation in the interlocutor.

Unusual examples of business communication that require careful preparation include cases where the caller needs to be reminded of himself after a long absence, as well as to offer a service to various types of clients whose preferences are unknown.

Features of incorrect behavior

Incorrect behavior implies:

• offensive remarks addressed to colleagues and clients of the company;
• use of profanity in conversation;
• rudeness, abuse of authority, intrusive behavior;
• tactless gestures towards colleagues and clients.

Also, inappropriate behavior of an employee includes violating the established dress code of the organization and wearing inappropriate clothing.

Code of Ethics

And official conduct is drawn up on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and developed in accordance with the principles and rules of conduct of an employee, which he is obliged to study when entering a position. A set of norms in the form of attitude towards are designed to ensure the efficiency of fulfilling official duties and to help increase the authority of employees in the team.

The Code of Ethics and Service Conduct shapes relationships within the workforce. It regulates such concepts as conflicts of interest within the company, abuse of power, data confidentiality, personal integrity, adherence to the principles of healthy competition, and much more. Any citizen of the Russian Federation has the right to expect employees to behave in accordance with their professional ethics.

Memorandum

Information in the form of a report is intended for senior management in order to bring it to their attention and apply appropriate measures. The difference between a memo and a memo is that the latter has legal force.

Any person who was present when an employee behaved inappropriately has the right to file a report against him. In addition to the report, it is permissible to record facts similar violation in relation to other employees and business partners.

An official report on inappropriate behavior must include the following items:

• indication of the culprit of incorrect behavior;
• name of the injured party;
• names of those present during the incident;
• other circumstances of the incident.

Report functions:

• solving administrative or production problems;
• proposals to rationalize and improve production;
• notification to management of disagreement with the decision of superiors;
• clarification of circumstances that arose during a conflict with employees or immediate supervisor;
• progress reports;
• complaints regarding failure of subordinates to fulfill their labor duties;
• investigation into improper delegation of responsibilities;
• reporting information about disciplinary violations;
• reporting information about unusual incidents that could result in material losses or physical harm;
• positive nature of events requiring management attention.

Responsibility and punishment

For inappropriate behavior, disciplinary punishment is provided in the form of a reprimand or reprimand. Dismissal is not permitted in this case, since the actions are not of a one-time serious nature.

If, prior to this, a disciplinary punishment has already taken place against this employee within a year, then a repeated reprimand may lead to dismissal, although his offense falls into another category of violations.

The official investigation does not insist on indicating the expressions that were used against the injured party. And if the case is taken to court, then such details should be confirmed, supported by facts with the help of witnesses.

Satisfaction of the claim by the court

In addition to the expected punishment under the Labor Code, it is possible to apply paragraphs of Article 152, which reflects the procedure for protecting business reputation.

The lawsuit will be satisfied under the following conditions:

• recognition of a violation of the code of ethics and official conduct;
• the information disseminated concerns the issue of honor;
• discrepancy between information and reality.

In this case, the plaintiff is obliged to provide evidence of the facts of insult, and the defendant is obliged to confirm what is true.

Professional ethics in macro perspective

Professional ethics can include a system of specific moral norms and principles, taking into account the characteristics of a certain professional activity, which ensures confidential communication.

Several large-scale directions can be identified as consequences.

1. Corrupt practices. This type of action limits freedom of choice and makes changes to the conditions for decision-making. The employee is then able to increase his benefit through unearned income. Bribery leads to the redistribution of resources in favor of less promising options.
2. Compulsion. Coercive actions prevent the development of relationships between a certain seller and customers, aimed at stimulating the purchase of specific services or products, which is why competition is untenable. As a result, there is a decrease in the quality of available products, a narrowing of the range, and a reduction in demand. Fewer resources go into production than would be available under unlimited competition.
3. Unreliability of information. Distortion of information about a product leads to consumer dissatisfaction and disruption of subsequent deliveries and production cycles. The consequence of unreliable information is unjustified expenditure of funds.
4. Theft. Theft increases the cost of services and products, since damages are compensated for by rising prices. The result is an increase in prices and irrational redistribution of resources, a shortage of products.

Psychology and ethics of business communication are components of a complex of basic sciences, based on the principles of most of them. And if the success of society does not depend on one individual, then the success of the company affects the subject and society. Thus, personal development, relationships within an organization, enterprise success and social development are interconnected, so professional ethics always remains relevant.