home Converter What is the place of work in an employment contract? Indicating the place of work in the employment contract: the importance of information for the employee and the boss What place of work to indicate.

What is the place of work in an employment contract? Indicating the place of work in the employment contract: the importance of information for the employee and the boss What place of work to indicate.

The importance of defining these two concepts is due to the fact that the first category is essential point labor contract (TD).

If in employment contract the place of work is not indicated, or it was incorrectly interpreted - this may lead to certain consequences not only for the employee, but also for his employer.

Concept

Labor legislation reveals the definition of only the concept “ workplace" By it is meant specific location of the employee, in which he performs his labor activity or must travel due to the need to perform certain work.

At the same time, it is noted that such a territory must be controlled by the employer, directly or indirectly. The law does not contain a definition of the concept of “place of work”. Analyzing regulatory legal acts, we will try to develop its definition or at least clearly identify the difference in the terminology of the two concepts.

The terms “place of work” and “workplace” (in an employment contract) are territorial in nature, that is, they imply work in a specifically defined place.

This is their universal property. The first of the terms is clearly dynamic, that is, it means that the place where a person reproduces his labor function, may change.

Changing the location of an employee is associated with the need to perform his work function in full.

For example, an employee of the prosecutor's office goes from the building of the main place of work - the prosecutor's office - to the court to defend the rights of an indefinite contingent of people.

Another category is characterized by staticity, that is refers to a specific object, building, Maybe, structural subdivision— branch or representative office — where a person works in accordance with labor and legal documents.

If we refer to the above example, then such a place for an employee of the prosecutor's office will be the building of the Prosecutor's Office, located at the appropriate address. And for the employee private organization- this is, for example, the building of Horns and Hooves LLC, OJSC and the like.

The role of the “place of work” clause in an employment contract

REFERENCE. The term “place of work” in an employment contract is essential condition. If the parties initially forgot to indicate such a clause, then it is added to the employment contract as a separate appendix or agreement.

Regarding the concept "workplace", that is unimportant point, included in employment documents purely at the request of the employer.

The concept of “place of work” is indicated only by specifying the location of a branch, representative office (other structural unit) in some cases when the work is performed in a structural unit in another location.

Also the term appears in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when the legislator guarantees that a worker who is temporarily unable to perform work duties due to illness, pregnancy and other similar reasons will retain a place of work.

The legislative concept is complicated by such categories as “structural unit”, “other locality”, “location”.

What is meant by “other locality”?

Is this a different city or region? Or maybe we are talking about a foreign country?

We believe that here it is appropriate to talk about both the city and the region, and even about a foreign country.

Thus, we are talking about a branch/representative office/other structural unit in another city, region, or country. Using a systematic analysis of existing labor law standards, we conclude that location is nothing more than organization address.

Filling rules

What should be indicated in the employment contract under the clause “place of work”?

Let's take a situation where the company's main office is located in Moscow, and its branch where the employee works is in Naberezhnye Chelny. Here, data indicating the company’s branch in Chelny is entered into the employment documents. The address (street, house) is specified.

For a detailed overview, let’s call the company “Lastochka”. Let the employee work in a branch of such an insurance company. Then the location of his work is as follows: a branch of the Lastochka insurance company, located at the address: 423800, Nab. Chelny, st. Komissarova 57/11.

If the organization does not have the above-mentioned divisions, then it is indicated that the citizen performs labor duties at the Lastochka Insurance Company, located at the address: 115280, Moscow, st. Leninskaya Sloboda, 63.

The workplace has a more specific meaning. Where legislation cannot comprehensively address a particular issue taking into account all the details, by-laws come to the rescue.

For example, the definition is disclosed in SanPiN dated October 1, 1996 No. 21 as a section of the premises where work is performed during the entire work shift or part of such a shift.

Logically, the general conclusion suggests itself that a workplace should be considered a certain part of the organization’s territory, where the employee works at a certain point in time. Such territory may change with the need to travel to other parts of the territory for labor issues.

Below is a sample of filling out the “place of work” clause in an employment contract:

Shift worker

The shift method of performing work duties is marked by its own characteristics.

The legislator, explaining the characteristics of the shift, makes it clear that the employee’s place of work during the shift is located at a great distance from the place where his home or the main office of the organization where he works is located.

This means that these territories do not coincide.

The place of performance of the labor function will accordingly be the territory, the object in which the employee directly works. For example, repairs, construction works, remote from the populated part of the area.

Driver (courier)

Driving and courier work also has its own characteristics (variable place of work in the employment contract), which provide for a constant change of location, usually within the same locality or between different such localities.

Here the location at a specific period of time is determined by the customer, and sometimes there are several customers during one work shift. It seems that the most accurate would be to designate the place of work as the territory where the main office is located, and if there are structural units of the organization, then a branch (representative office) in the locality in which the employee mainly moves or, if its definition causes certain difficulties, the main office.

Legal meaning

Legal meaning of certainty in terminology huge. An incorrect interpretation of the concept may, for example, negatively affect the fate of the employee.

Thus, the legislation provides for absenteeism or absence from work without good reason for more than 4 hours continuously.

And if an employee stops agreeing with his boss for some personal reasons, he may try to take advantage of the situation.

The law provides for the ability of an employer to fire an employee for being intoxicated at the workplace.

And if there is conceptual uncertainty, the employer will have obstacles to freeing up this particular position for a more worthy and worthwhile employee.

Here we should remember the labor protection guarantees that the employer may violate if the terms are misinterpreted.

For example, that the workplace must comply with standards established at the state level. Difficulties arise when trying to achieve guarantees of compensation for work performed in harmful and dangerous conditions.

In addition to the above, when replacing the concept of “place of work” with “workplace,” the employer has additional responsibilities at constant change location of the worker, otherwise such movement, or in legal slang, transfer, will be illegal. And the employee can also take advantage of such a formal situation and go to court.

Conclusion

As you can see, just one substitution of concepts or incorrect interpretation of a term can lead to serious legal consequences. There are frequent errors during judicial consideration of a case due to the lack of a clear terminological position of the legislator.

Therefore, it is important to always carefully study more than one source in order to understand what the legislator wanted to say in this case, but it is better to seek advice from a professional.

On the role of the term “place of work” in an employment contract, watch this useful video:

When concluding an employment contract with an employee, the question often arises of what exactly to indicate in the “Place of work” column. Labor Code does not answer this question, but, on the contrary, confuses the employer, since in different articles Code The concept of “place of work” is used in various senses.

The employment contract must indicate the place of work, and in the case where the employee is hired to work in a branch, representative office or other separate structural unit of the organization located in another area, the place of work indicating the separate structural unit and its location (Part 2 Article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Note that this requirement applies to all cases of concluding employment contracts. In particular, the parties are required to determine the conditions regarding the place of work and when concluding an employment contract on remote work (Rostrud letter No. PG/8960-6-1 dated 10/07/2013 (hereinafter referred to as Letter No. PG/8960-6-1)).

At the same time, the legislator does not specify exactly what meaning he gives to the term “place of work”. Moreover, from the content Labor Code it follows that in its different norms this concept is used in different senses. So, for example, in articles 72.2, 73, 114, 121, 167, 170, 187, 212, 219, 220, 256 of the Labor Code, the place of work is understood as the position held by the employee, in articles 64, 325 - the employer, and in article 297 - place where the employee performs his labor function.

Thus, the complexity of the problem of interpreting the term “place of work” as a condition of an employment contract lies not only in the absence of any explanations from the legislator on this issue directly in Article 57 of the Labor Code, but also in the impossibility of using other norms to explain this term labor legislation due to the lack of any unified approach to the definition of this concept by the legislator.

“Place of work” from the point of view of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

The question of what should be understood as a place of work, about which we're talking about in Article 57 of the Labor Code, was touched upon in the review of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the practice of courts considering cases related to the implementation of labor activities by citizens in the regions of the Far North and equivalent areas (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on February 26, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Review)). As indicated Supreme Court Russian Federation, in the theory of labor law, a place of work is understood as a specific organization located in a certain area (settlement), its representative office, branch, or other separate structural unit.

At the same time, speaking about the understanding of this term that has developed in the theory of labor law, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation clearly loses sight of the fact that so far no single or even prevailing approach to the interpretation of the term “place of work” has been formed. Experts mostly agree only that the concepts of “place of work” and “workplace” are not identical (rulings of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dated September 18, 2012 No. 33-11596/2012, Tula Regional Court dated February 9, 2012 No. 33-380, Amur Regional Court dated January 19, 2011 No. 33-281/11). This conclusion follows both from the very wording of the norm of part two of Article 57 of the Labor Code, and from part four of the same article, according to which the condition about the workplace is additional and is included in the employment contract only by agreement of the parties. And since by workplace the legislator understands the place where the employee must be or where he needs to arrive in connection with his work and which is directly or indirectly under the control of the employer (Article 209 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), then “place of work” must mean something else. However, on the question of what exactly this “other” is, there is no consensus in the theory of labor law.

The formulation used by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also does not allow us to clearly conclude whether the judges themselves adhere to the point of view they voiced. However, the inclusion of this thesis in the Review, in our opinion, still assumes that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation itself considers it fair.

Thus, in accordance with the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the condition on the place of work in an employment contract should actually consist of two elements:

name of the employing organization;
indication of the area in which such organization is located. In this case, by locality we mean locality within the existing administrative-territorial division (clause 16 of the post of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2004 No. 2).

Note that a similar approach to defining the term “place of work” was found in judicial practice and earlier (decision of the Central District Court of Novosibirsk dated November 11, 2013 No. 2-2091/2013).

Indication of the locality as the place of work in the employment contract

Indicating the locality as the place of work indeed seems necessary, which is confirmed by an analysis of Articles 72 and 72.1 of the Labor Code. Thus, in accordance with the first part of Article 72.1, a transfer to work in another locality together with the employer is a transfer to another job. And as follows from Article 72, transfer to another job is a special case of changing the terms of the employment contract determined by the parties. Thus, the transfer of an employee to another location should entail a change in the terms of the employment contract. And since, by default, a transfer to work in another locality involves a change only in the locality itself, it should be concluded that a certain locality must initially be indicated in the employment contract. Some courts have also come to the conclusion that it is necessary to indicate a certain locality as a place of work (ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated December 8, 2011 No. 33-16435).

At the same time, in our opinion, in some cases it will be incorrect to indicate in the employment contract as the place of work the location in which the organization or its structural unit for which the employee is hired is located. Thus, we consider such a definition of the place of work unacceptable in situations where an employee carries out his work activity in an area in which not a single structural unit of the employer has been created (for example, when working remotely). The legal meaning of including a condition on the place of work in an employment contract, in our opinion, is to protect the interests of the employee in terms of his right to perform work in a certain territory convenient for him, as well as to provide statutory guarantees associated with work in a certain area. Thus, the location in which the employee actually carries out his work activity must be indicated as the place of work. Otherwise, achieving the above goals would be impossible. In favor of this point of view, one can also cite the explanations of the Ministry of Finance of Russia, given by it together with the Ministry of Labor of Russia (letter of the Ministry of Finance of Russia dated 01.08.2013 No. 03-03-06/1/30978), and the above-mentioned letter of Rostrud No. PG/8960-6- 1.

When the employment contract specifies a specific address as the place of work

We also note that some experts consider it insufficient to indicate only a certain location in the employment contract, expressing the opinion that it is necessary to specify the conditions regarding the place of work to the address at which the employee carries out work. However, in our opinion, in the general case, the existence of a corresponding obligation does not follow from the content of the Labor Code.

This conclusion is based, in particular, on the wording of the very norm of paragraph two of part two of Article 57 of the Labor Code, according to which the requirements for indicating the place of work in the employment contract change if the employee is hired to work in a separate structural unit of the organization located in another area, and not at another address. In addition, in the case when an employee is hired to work in a separate structural unit of an organization located in another area, the place of work is determined by indicating the separate structural unit and its location. The wording “place of work indicating location”, in our opinion, suggests that the concept of “place of work” should be broader than the concept of “location”. And if by location it is really logical to understand the specific address of the structural unit in which the employee works, then the place of work in this case should be determined with a lesser degree of localization. The possibility of indicating the place of work without mentioning a specific address also follows from part three of Article 72.1 of the Labor Code. The wording of this norm allows us to conclude that the legislator allows for the possibility that the movement of an employee from a certain employer to another workplace or to another structural unit located in the same area will not entail a change in the terms of the employment contract determined by the parties (as defined by the St. Petersburg City Council). court dated 06.06.2011 No. 33-8353).

Thus, in the general case, indicating in the employment contract the specific address at which the employee performs his work function as the place of work is not mandatory. This conclusion is also reflected in judicial practice (decision of the Bryansk Regional Court dated August 14, 2012 No. 33-2598/12). Let us note that in this case, on the instructions of the inspector from the labor inspectorate, the employer had to indicate in the employment contract with the employee the missing condition, namely the place of work - a separate or structural unit and its location. But since all the separate divisions of the employer were located within one locality (city), the court did not see the need to specify the address of the place of work.

At the same time, if an employee is hired to work in a separate structural unit located in another locality, indicating the specific address of this structural unit does indeed seem necessary (ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated September 16, 2013 No. 33-11864). However, even if an employee is hired to work in a parent organization or a separate structural unit located in the same area, the parties have the right to clarify the conditions regarding the place of work before indicating the specific structural unit to which the employee is hired and its location (Part 4 of Article 57 Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Legal address of the employer as place of work

Let us note that in the courts the thesis about the obligation of the parties to specify the place of work to a certain address often takes the form of an indication of the need to determine the place of work through legal address employer (rulings of the Saratov Regional Court dated March 29, 2012 No. 33-1475/2012, Tula Regional Court dated February 9, 2012 No. 33-380).

However, this statement, in our opinion, is incorrect due to the fact that not in all cases the employee actually works at the legal address of the employer. Consequently, such a definition of the place of work may lead to the fact that the terms of the employment contract will not reflect the objectively existing working conditions of the employee, which is unacceptable.

Name of the employing organization as the place of work

As for the question of indicating the name of the employing organization as the place of work, this seems to the author unnecessary. The name of the employer is already indicated in the employment contract as part of information about its parties (Part 1 of Article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). And given that the obligation to provide the employee with work stipulated by the employment contract lies precisely with the employer as a party to the labor relationship, no other organization in any case could act as the employee’s place of work. In the courts, there is also a position according to which the name of the employer is precisely one of the information about the parties to the employment contract, but not its condition (ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated November 18, 2013 No. 33-14738).

The pointlessness of indicating the name of the employer as a condition of the employment contract is also determined by the fact that, in the author’s opinion, such a name in any case cannot be considered a condition of the employment contract agreed upon by the parties.

As follows from the norms of the Labor Code, the employment contract regulates precisely the labor relations between the employee and the employer (Part 1 of Article 9 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The obligation of organizations to have a name and the right (and in some cases, the obligation) to change it are established by civil law and are outside the scope of labor relations. The implementation by the employer of rights and the fulfillment of obligations associated with his name cannot be made dependent on the provisions of the employment contract and cannot require agreement with the employee. Thus, indicating the name of the employing organization as the place of work, in the author’s opinion, will not lead to the inclusion of this information in the terms of the employment contract.

However, despite the above, courts very often conclude that it is necessary to indicate the name of the employer when determining the conditions for the place of work. Moreover, if in some court decisions this information is presented as only one of the elements of the conditions about the place of work (rulings of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated April 15, 2014 No. 33-1128/2014, Chelyabinsk Regional Court dated April 8, 2014 No. 11-3444/2014, dated September 17. 2013 No. 11-10096/2013), then in other cases judges consider the indication of the name of the employer sufficient to determine this condition (decision of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated September 29, 2010 No. 33-2650/10).

As can be seen, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also considered the inclusion of this information in the conditions regarding the place of work necessary. In this regard, in order to avoid possible disputes and claims from inspection bodies, the author believes that mentioning the name of the employer when determining the employee’s place of work is appropriate, especially since, as mentioned above, this does not entail any legal consequences.

employer's name;
the area in which the employee will actually perform his work function.

In general, the wording of the corresponding condition may look something like this: “The employee’s place of work is Romashka LLC (Moscow).”

If an employee is hired to work in a separate division of an organization located in another area, then when determining the terms of the place of work, the parties should indicate the name of the employer, the structural unit and its address: “The employee’s place of work is a branch of Romashka LLC, located at Perm, Stroiteley St., 15".

"Personnel officer. Labor law for personnel officers", 2011, N 9

Question: In Art. 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, when working conditions are listed, it first states that the place of work is a mandatory condition, and then below it states that this condition is additional, requiring clarification. How can this be? Please give specific wording.

Answer: The Labor Code of the Russian Federation really pays increased attention to this condition of the employment contract, since changing this working condition entails certain legal consequences.

Part 2 Art. 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation obliges to indicate the place of work in the employment contract. Moreover, the law does not explain what should be understood by this. But it is clear that “place of work” and “workplace” are different concepts.

We read about what should be understood by a workplace in Art. 209 Labor Code: workplace is a place where an employee must be or where he needs to arrive in connection with his work and which is directly or indirectly under the control of the employer.

But the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not define the place of work, which sometimes gives rise to certain “discrepancies” in practice. Many personnel officers see this as the need to write the exact name of the employer. Others indicate the address where the office, warehouse, etc. are located and where the employee must go on working days to perform his work function.

But the Labor Code of the Russian Federation clearly obliges a detailed indication of the place of work when an employee is accepted into an organization that has a complex organizational structure. In such cases, it is not enough just to indicate the name of the employer (it will already be indicated in the “header” of the employment contract), but the employer must explain in which branch (representative office, other separate structural unit of the organization located in another locality) the employee is hired and indicate his location (i.e. exact address).

The wording will be something like this:

“The employee’s place of work is the Podolsk branch of Firma LLC, located at the address: 111111, Moscow region, Podolsk, Profsoyuznaya str., 5.”

If the organization does not have a complex organizational structure with an extensive network of branches, additional offices, and other separate structural divisions, then it may still be necessary to clarify the employee’s place of work. For example, name in which particular structural unit allocated in staffing table, the employee will work. Let's say the position of a secretary can be “assigned” to different departments: the sales department, the purchasing department, etc. In this case, clarification is indispensable. This is exactly what will clarify the place of work: “Secretary of the sales department.”

But also in large company Moreover, this information needs to be detailed, for example:

“The employee’s place of work is the financial accounting and control department of the finance department of the Podolsk branch of Firma LLC, located at the address: 111111, Moscow region, Podolsk, Profsoyuznaya str., 5.”

Thus, make a distinction: “a separate structural unit” (part 2 of article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation) and simply a “structural unit” (part 4 of article 57 of the Labor Code) are also different things.

In an employment contract, it is “allowed” not to indicate only the structural unit (it is an additional condition).

L. Frantsuzova

By labor law

LLC "Personnel Holding"

"Beta Press"

Signed for seal

When a company enters into an employment contract with a new employee, it needs to specify the place of work in the agreement. This is not understood as a geographical concept, but as the organization in which the newcomer will work.

Attention! You are on a professional website for employment lawyers and HR specialists. Registration may be required to read this article.

What is meant by the term “place of work” in law and judicial practice?

A popular question that is asked when drawing up employment contracts with new employees is the question of how exactly to fix the place of work in the agreement. The question arises due to the fact that:

the Labor Code of the Russian Federation does not have an exact definition of what a place of work is;
in different articles the phrase is used with different meanings. One norm implies an organization (Part 4 of Article 64 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), in the other - territory (Part 2 of Article 59 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation);
the company is obliged to indicate this information in the contract (). It cannot be replaced with the company address in the agreement details.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the concept means an organization that:

is located in a specific locality,
signed an agreement with a new employee ().

The interpretation of the term by the RF Armed Forces applies not only to the head offices of companies, but also to:

representative offices,
branches,
other separate structural divisions.

Useful documents

Complaint against a decision of the State Tax Inspectorate imposing a fine on an official

That is, when an employment contract is concluded with a new employee separate division, to indicate information about the place of work, proceed from where the unit is located. If it is in the same place as the main office, it is not necessary to write that the employee joined the division. Limit yourself to the company name. If the unit is located in another locality, indicate that the newcomer was hired as a member of the unit (Part 2 of Article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Is it necessary to indicate the address of the place of work in an employment contract?

Another popular question is whether it is necessary to indicate the specific address of the organization as the place of work in the employment contract. According to the law, the main office or division and its location must be indicated (Part 2, Article 57 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, Part 2, Article 54 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). They mean the locality where they registered executive agency company or where its division operates (Part 2 of Article 11 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation). That is, you need to indicate the locality as the place of work, and not the exact address. If the address is included in the contract, when a company moves or an employee is transferred within one locality, the transfer will have to be completed with his consent (Article 72.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

To reduce the risk of claims from the State Labor Inspectorate regarding your place of work:

write down the name of the company and locality in the contract;
do this in two places - not only in the preamble, but also in the conditions.

What is the difference between a place of work and a workplace

Some employers are concerned that without indicating a specific address, it will be difficult for an employee to be held accountable for absenteeism. However, there is no need to specify the address specifically in the contract. Please indicate it in job description, department regulations or other local act.

The fact is that the address specifies where the employee’s workplace is located. This is how they determine exactly where he should come (Part 6 of Article 209 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Specifying the workplace, unlike the place of work, is not a mandatory condition when concluding a contract with an employee.

How to indicate the place of work of traveling and remote employees

The company can employ not only employees who are constantly in the same place. Traveling staff is often needed. In addition, it is more convenient to delegate some functions to employees remotely.

In both cases, you need to determine what information about the place of work to include in the contract. Such employees either move or do not appear on company premises. However, in terms of location this does not matter. This element has a legal meaning and does not indicate a geographical location. Therefore, even when an employee spends the whole day on the road, his place of work remains the company with which he signed an agreement.

There is a subtlety to remote workers. Labor Relations they have with a specific company. In Article 57 of the Labor Code no exception was made for such workers. At the same time, there is a letter from Rostrud, which recommends indicating the employee’s address, and not the organization (

The LLC has changed its address and is making changes to the documents. Address according to the Charter: Saratov. Information was submitted to the registration authority: Saratov and a specific street according to the actual location. Is it possible in additional agreement to the employment contract with employees to write that “the employee performs a labor function in the premises located at the address Saratov” WITHOUT INDICATION OF THE STREET AND HOUSE”?

Answer

"To section" General provisions» enter prerequisites employment contract:

place of work (for example, the name of the organization and the locality in which it is located). If an employee is hired to work in a branch or separate structural unit located in another area, be sure to indicate this unit and its location;
. If an employee is entitled to compensation, benefits or restrictions by position, then the names of these positions must correspond to the qualification directories;
work start date. If you are concluding a fixed-term employment contract, then indicate the duration of its validity and the basis for its conclusion (for the duration of the duties of the absent employee, for the duration of the seasonal work and so on.);
nature of the work (mobile, traveling, on the road);
working conditions in the workplace: safe, harmful, dangerous - based on the results of a special assessment of working conditions (former certification);
other conditions in cases provided for by other regulatory legal acts. For example, standards for issuing flushing or neutralizing agents for employees engaged in relevant types of work.

This is stated in paragraphs,