As pointed out by the Constitutional Tribunal of the Russian Federation in the Decision of 17.10.06, No. 381-О, the absence in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation of a list of “disrespectful reasons” cannot in itself be considered as violating the constitutional rights of people. As strange as it may seem, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Russian Federation explains this by the fact that in carrying out, as everyone knows, judicial verification of the employer's decision, the tribunal does not act arbitrarily, but finally proceeds from the general principles of legal, and therefore, disciplinary responsibility ( namely, fairness, proportionality, legality) and assesses the entire set of certain events in the case, including inspecting and evaluating incidents and the reasons for the employee's absence from work, the employee's previous behavior, his attitude to work, etc.

The employer should act in a similar way when assessing Small Business Accountants in Walsall the circumstances of the employee's absence from the workplace. The employer must establish a disciplinary sanction commensurate with the misconduct, taking into account the employee's previous behavior, namely, his earlier recruitment to disciplinary responsibility (Definition of the RF Armed Forces dated 03.30.12, No. 69-B12-1).

In addition, it is purposeful for the employer, in general, to take into account the law enforcement practice of the courts on this issue. For example, the tribunal recognizes as valid reasons for absence from work:

• summoning an employee on a summons to the internal affairs bodies, for example, for a survey (Determination of the RF Armed Forces dated April 30, 2010, No. 6-B10-1);
• summoning an employee on a subpoena to the tribunal, for example, for a role in a trial (Determination of the Capital Regional Court of 31.08.10, No. 33-15193);
• temporary incapacity for work, confirmed by an extract from the hospital patient's card in the absence of a certificate of incapacity for work (Determination of the Capital, as everyone knows, of the city court of 10.08.10, No. 33-23831).

When assessing the actions of an employee, it is essential to know that absenteeism is not recognized as the introduction of rest days by the employee, if the employer, in violation of, as many think, the statutory obligation refused to provide them, and the time the employee used such days did not depend on the employer's discretion.