General Theoretical Characteristics of the Institution of Disciplinary Liability in Labor Law

It has been specified that disciplinary liability should be understood as the employee’s obligation to stand surety to the employer, who is endowed with the disciplinary authority, for his violation of labor discipline in the form of non-performance or improper performance of his labor duties due to the employee and as the result, bear negative consequences provided by labor law. It has been substantiated that the purpose of disciplinary liability has two aspects: the first is to ensure proper discipline in order to ensure the further effective functioning of the enterprise (organization, institution, etc.), and therefore its presence is an important preventive measure of disciplinary offenses’ commission. The second aspect is to apply negative measures to the offender, which, in turn, allows to restore the violated labor (including official) rights, to avoid the negative consequences of the offense and to educate the employee in the spirit of legality and discipline. The main tasks of disciplinary liability include: to ensure the compliance with labor discipline by each employee in performing their duties; to create comfortable working conditions for each employee (state official); to create a favorable, friendly atmosphere in the team; to punish the employee who committed a disciplinary offense; to prevent situations, when an employee may commit a disciplinary offense. It has been argued that the functions of disciplinary liability are: educational, punitive, protective, stimulating, renewing, informative, preventive and staffing. It has been generalized that the essence and content of disciplinary liability as an institution of labor law are as follows: first of all, despite the fact that disciplinary liability, is although a kind of legal liability, it has its own characteristics inherent in labor law; secondly, the employer is not obliged to apply penalties to the violator of labor discipline, such application is his right; thirdly, the employee, in turn, is responsible to the employer and not to the state for non-compliance with labor discipline, i.e. for culpable improper performance of obligations imposed by the employment contract.