The draft Labor Code 2026

On January 15, 2026, the new version of the Labor Code №14386 was registered in the  Parliament.

Previously on December 30, 2025, the Governmental Committee on Economic, Financial, Agricultural, Investment, Sanctions Policy, Coordination on Issues of Organization of Humanitarian Demining, Entrepreneurship Development, Effective Management of State Property, Environmental and Natural Resources Protection considered and approved the new version of the draft Labor Code, which is planned to be submitted to the Parliament.

On February 04 2026, the Parliamentary Committee on Social policy and veterans` rights protection voted to include the draft Labor Code to the Parliamentary agenda.

The draft LC compiles various provisions and laws (either adopted or just under consideration). For instance, Book 3, “Collective Labor Relations,” is, in fact, the 2023 adopted new Law on Collective Agreements (agreed by social partners). Book 4 is dedicated, in particular, to collective industrial disputes and their resolution. This book is based on the text developed by the working group functioning under the auspices of the National Mediation and Conciliation Service of Ukraine (NMCS). 

Book 4 addresses the same subject and scope of industrial relations as the draft law on collective industrial dispute resolution (No.12034) submitted by a group of MPs to parliament on September 16, 2024. However, draft law No.12034 is also derived from the NMCS efforts, but in an edited form. 

The draft Labor Code sets several positive norms that move Ukrainian legislation towards EU and international standards (longer annual leave, the list of employment relations indicators, some enhanced protections for fixed-term contracts, the introduction of the equal pay for equal work principle, etc.). However, all of these provisions face technical issues of clarity and ambiguity that may impede their proper implementation. 

For example, relations could be deemed employment relations if five or more of the listed indicators of an employment relationship are present. This threshold is rather high; previous versions set the threshold at three or more indicators. 

Furthermore, it is unclear whether a violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work will be seen as discrimination or bullying. 

Moreover, there are some critical concerns (outlined below) that may undermine these improvements.  

Article 35 establishes the right to develop “video surveillance of workers.”

While it is common for worksites to have cameras today, Ukrainian legislation requires employers to obtain prior worker consent to surveillance and to notify workers about the locations of installed cameras.

Although the draft says that such surveillance should not infringe upon workers` private lives, LI lawyers think that this provision could be declarative. The risk of breaching constitutional rights remains, particularly when an employee uses medication or takes private calls during their shift. The draft law does not specify clear rules for collecting, accessing, or retaining information about workers. 

In addition, the draft Labor Code emphasizes that video surveillance is an extreme form of employer control over an employee and may be used only if alternative methods of employee control are impractical or ineffective. At the same time, the law does not articulate what the “alternative methods of control” are. 

Art. 36 enables employers to monitor employees’ work-related correspondence and documents on devices utilized for job responsibilities.

In wartime, many workers work remotely, using their own devices for both personal and work communication. In this regard, Article 31 may breach their privacy. To avoid violations and arbitrariness during worker monitoring, LI lawyers recommend considering the ECHR decision in the case Bărbulescu v. Romania. It emphasizes the necessity of proportionality and procedural safeguards in monitoring workers. For example, it’s crucial to differentiate between monitoring the flow of communications and their content; the employee should have protections against intrusive access to the correspondence and the repercussions of such monitoring.

Moreover, in the context of EU integration aspirations, it is worth paying attention to EU practice, which requires union consultation to ensure technologies are used ethically and responsibly at worksites. EU Directive 2002/14/EC establishes the right of employee representatives to be informed and consulted about substantial changes to work organization and working conditions. EU labor experts state that the introduction of devices designed to monitor employees’ behavior or performance could be considered a ‘substantial change to work organization’ (Article 4) and is therefore subject to information and consultation at the workplace. EU Member States such as Austria, Germany, Finland, France, and the Netherlands have national laws granting information and consultation rights to employee representatives regarding employee monitoring.

Under Art. 104 of the draft, the contract with a union member may be terminated at the employer`s initiative after “consultations” with the union (currently, the employer must receive the union’s consent for employment contract termination). The union’s prior consent mechanism is retained only for elected union members.

LI experts believe that the consent requirement offers better protection for union members, as the consultations may be merely formal. Acknowledging the role of union whistleblowers in exposing corruption in Ukraine, LI lawyers think that preserving the consent requirement is essential for this category of activists. 

The proposed draft Labor Code also fails to reflect the current Article 45 of the Code of Labor Laws, which provides for the termination of an employment contract with a manager at the request of the elected body of a local trade union chapter (trade union representative). At present, the  Code of Labor Laws stipulates that, at the request of the elected body of a local trade union organization (trade union representative), the employer must terminate the employment contract with the head of an enterprise, institution, or organization if such person violates labor legislation or legislation on collective agreements, as well as the Law of Ukraine “On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity.” In addition, the final and transitional provisions of the draft Labor Code exclude a similar provision set out in Article 33 of the Law of Ukraine “On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity.”

This provision serves as an effective guarantee of trade union oversight over compliance with current legislation and the protection of hired employees from unscrupulous managers who violate labor laws. Moreover, this provision is also important for the employer in cases where a hired manager (director, etc.) violates the law, thereby causing potential losses – both financial and reputational – to business owners.

Art.120 raises (compared with the valid Labor Code) the number of legitimate overtime hours from 120 to 180 per year. The collective agreement may provide for increased overtime hours, not exceeding 250 hours per year.

LI lawyers believe that such a significant increase in overtime hours could lead to abuse and violations of workers’ rights. Currently, overtime is often not included in time record sheets and is not paid adequately to workers. Additionally, contrary to current legislation, unions under the new draft Labor Code are deprived of the right to approve overtime hours before they are applied.  

The draft weakens protections for workers with family responsibilities. Art. 103 prohibits employers from terminating employment contracts for pregnant employees, those with a child under 1.5 years, or a child with a disability, single mothers (fathers) with children under 14 years, except in cases where the employer is liquidating the legal entity. For now, such guarantees exist for women with children up to 3.

Unclear grounds for dismissal.

Art. 97 establishes that a worker may be dismissed because of repeated violation of his/her duties. As repeated is considered “any” violation committed during the year after the previous violation. The word “any” created the space for abuse during dismissal.

This version omits valid clauses on labor disciplinary regulations, such as reprimands.

Nevertheless, LI lawyers assert that reprimands offer greater benefits to workers as a method of addressing violations of labor disciplinary regulations. When employees fail to fulfill their essential job responsibilities or engage in inappropriate conduct, appropriate disciplinary measures, such as reprimands, can increase the likelihood that they will improve or cease undesirable behaviors—particularly in cases of minor violations. Thus, the draft Labor Code should define reprimand provisions, or at least some alternatives. While Article 97 of the draft incorporates aspects of the current labor disciplinary rules, such as requiring written explanations from employees when violations occur and the employer`s warning about potential dismissal after repeated violations, these do not fully align with the processes established in the existing Labor Code. 

Art. 238 allows pre-trial dispute resolution through negotiation. However, if a worker believes their rights are violated, they may file a complaint with the employer within 7 days of discovering the violation.

Labor Initiatives lawyers often use the complaint instrument. It is common practice to file complaints or requests with employers to address disputes efficiently. Currently, there are no submission time limits, and LI lawyers believe it would be unreasonable to impose one in the new draft LC.

Deadlines to file a lawsuit in court.

Art. 238 stipulates that a worker may apply to court within three months of discovering a violation of labor rights. LI experts and union representatives emphasized repeatedly that this term is insufficient.

Moreover, the draft LC establishes that, to collect unpaid wages, a worker may apply to the court within three months. It contradicts the recently adopted Constitutional Court Decision №1-р/2025, ruling that part 1 of Article 233 of the (current) Labor Code—which establishes a three-month deadline for filing lawsuits over unpaid or delayed wages—is unconstitutional. These three months were added to Ukrainian law in 2022; before that, there was no time limit. 

The decision highlights that setting a three-month deadline for workers to file a court claim to recover wages and other owed payments conflicts with the Ukrainian Constitution. This deadline narrows the scope of the constitutional rights guaranteed by Articles 43 and 45, breaches the guarantee of timely remuneration, and hampers employees’ ability to exercise their right to judicial protection. Such limitations violate part 1 of article 8, part 7 of article 43, and part 1 of article 55 of the Ukrainian Constitution.

Consequently, workers are now permitted to initiate legal proceedings regarding delayed or unpaid wages without being constrained by any temporal limitations. 

Art. 286 forbids public servants from striking

At present, public servants are deprived of the right to strike, and the unions have raised this issue as strikes orchestrated by public servants are common in EU countries. The law draft №12034 on collective labor disputes restricts the right to strike for public servants in categories “A” and “B,” allowing only those in the lowest category, “C,” to retain this right. Still, this is considered insufficient because it restricts many public-sector workers’ ability to exercise this right. The draft LC aims to deprive public servants of the right to strike completely.

Art. 290 stipulates the employer’s right to a lockout.

Trade unions in Ukraine strongly oppose the new regulations, claiming that these norms will violate the European Social Charter.

Unlike valid national legislation, the LC draft does not allow initiating a collective industrial dispute or conducting a strike in the structural unit (a sub-unit of the overall enterprise).

According to LI lawyers, this limitation diminishes workers` rights since mobilizing the entire workforce for a strike can be challenging in practice. Furthermore, permitting sub-units to initiate industrial disputes or strikes could better address their unique requirements.

Art. 270 outlines that labor arbitration decisions in industrial labor disputes are binding. They may be challenged in court only on procedural grounds (e.g., improper composition of the arbitration commission, a decision made regarding an improper collective labor dispute, etc.).

Thus, if workers disagree with the substance of the decision, they have no recourse to contest it, despite the constitutional provision (Art. 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine) that the jurisdiction of the courts extends to all legal disputes that arise in the State.