Advocates have warned that the draft Labor Code would curtail workers' protections

Certain provisions of the draft Labor Code of Ukraine regarding collective labor disputes undermine labor protections and do not comply with constitutional and international standards.

The UNBA Committee on labor law has prepared comments and proposals regarding draft law No. 14386 dated January 15, 2026. These were submitted to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on social policy and the protection of veterans’ rights.

In particular, the advocates drew attention to the provision of Part 4 of Article 277 of the draft, which provides for the possibility of a strike without prior labor mediation or labor arbitration only under additional conditions, specifically in the event that the employer fails to respond to demands regarding the repayment of overdue wage arrears in the prescribed amount. However, the current Article 18 of the Law «On the procedure for resolving collective labor disputes (conflicts)» does not contain such requirements, and therefore the proposed model restricts workers’ right to strike. The document also references the position of the ILO Committee, according to which restrictions on this right must not be excessive, and dispute resolution procedures must not be overly complex or protracted.

Separately, the UNBA expressed concerns regarding the legalization of the so-called lockout. In the draft, this is understood to mean a temporary full or partial suspension of the employer’s operations or a restriction on employees’ access to workplaces without terminating employment contracts. According to the proposed wording of Article 291 of the draft, a lockout may be applied by an employer exclusively at the local level. However, as the European Committee of social rights has pointed out, this approach does not comply with the European Social Charter, which does not recognize an individual employer’s right to a lockout, except in exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, Article 44 of the Constitution guarantees only the right to strike for employees, but does not establish an employer’s right to a lockout. An analysis of the draft suggests the possibility of simultaneously applying both a lockout and the suspension of an employment contract to employees participating in a strike. However, this is unacceptable, as in such a case, employees would effectively face restrictions on the exercise of their constitutional right.

Separate attention was also drawn to wages during a lockout: the draft allows the employer to independently determine the procedure for paying wages but does not establish minimum guarantees, which could jeopardize the payment of wages to employees who did not participate in the strike but were unable to work due to its occurrence.

In conclusion, the UNBA Committee stated that the introduction of a lockout in its proposed form could become a form of unilateral collective pressure, restrict the exercise of the right to strike, and disrupt the balance of interests in the mechanism for resolving collective labor disputes. A lockout cannot override employees’ right to strike, and in the absence of clear legislative conditions and judicial oversight, there is a risk that the draft would violate Article 6 of the European Social Charter.

The UNBA also raised comments regarding other provisions of the draft, specifically concerning non-standard forms of employment, video surveillance of employees, rest periods, mediation in labor disputes, the role of the National mediation and conciliation service, as well as issues of employee safety and health.

The full text of the comments and proposals can be downloaded via this link.