The Supreme Court confirmed that: a labor inspector is not limited to checking only one applicant; during the inspection, the employment relationships of other employees can be investigated; all places of actual activity of the employer can be inspected
The Labor and Employment Inspectorate of the Dnipro City Council reports on its Facebook page that on July 20, 2026, the Supreme Court adopted a resolution in case No. 420/33487/24 , which may significantly affect the practice of conducting inspections by the State Labor Service.
The court formed a number of fundamental legal conclusions regarding how unscheduled inspections should be conducted at the request of an employee, whether an inspector has the right to inspect other persons working for the employer, and when the suspension of an employment contract may be recognized as unlawful.
What happened?
An employee appealed to the State Labor Service with a complaint about:
- admission to work without an employment contract;
- non-payment of wages;
- violation of his labor rights.
Based on the application, an unscheduled inspection of the individual entrepreneur was conducted.
During the inspection, inspectors discovered several more people who actually performed the work, provided explanations regarding the work schedule and remuneration, but the proper registration of employment relations raised doubts.
Based on the results of the inspection, the State Labor Service issued an order to eliminate the violations.
The individual entrepreneur appealed to the court.
Why did the courts of first and appellate instance side with the employer?
Previous courts have concluded that the State Labor Service:
- went beyond the applicant's request;
- checked other employees;
- inspected another store that was not listed in the complaint.
It was for these reasons that the prescription was canceled.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The Administrative Court of Cassation noted that this approach is too formal.
The main goal of state control is to identify violations of labor legislation, not just to verify the facts stated by one applicant.
The inspector has the right to inspect other employees
One of the most important conclusions of the resolution was that an application from one employee does not limit the inspector to checking only his personal situation.
If the subject of the inspection is:
- informal employment relationships;
- legality of termination of employment contracts;
- payment of wages,
then the inspector has the right to investigate documents and factual circumstances regarding other employees of this employer.
The Supreme Court justified this conclusion:
- ILO Convention No. 81 ;
- Law of Ukraine dated 05.04.2007 No. 877-V “On the Basic Principles of State Supervision (Control) in the Sphere of Economic Activity”;
- The Constitution of Ukraine .
Verification can be carried out at multiple addresses
The court specifically emphasized:
- The labor inspector must inspect the places where economic activities are actually carried out.
Therefore, if an employer operates in several stores or other facilities, the State Labor Service may inspect all places of activity specified in the referral.
It is not necessary to be limited to the address provided by the applicant.
Formal violations do not always invalidate the results of the inspection
The Supreme Court confirmed another important position:
- not every procedural violation automatically makes a prescription illegal.
For example:
- if the prescription was signed by one inspector, and not by all members of the commission;
- if there were minor procedural flaws,
this in itself is not a reason for its annulment, unless such deficiencies have affected the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case.
The court explained in detail the signs of a hidden employment relationship
In its ruling, the Supreme Court once again drew attention to the criteria that indicate the existence of an employment relationship.
Among them:
- performing the work personally;
- systematic payment of remuneration;
- subordination to the employer;
- work according to schedule;
- providing a workplace;
- integration of the employee into the activities of the enterprise;
- performing work in the interests of the employer.
It is the totality of these signs that the court should examine.
Special attention is paid to the suspension of the employment contract
The Supreme Court once again clarified the application of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine No. 2136-IX.
The court noted:
- Suspension of an employment contract is possible only when, due to armed aggression, both the employer and the employee cannot simultaneously fulfill their obligations.
If the employer could actually provide the work and the employee could perform it, the use of the suspension mechanism may be illegal.
In this case, the question may arise about the application of the rules of downtime with payment guarantees in accordance with Article 113 of the Labor Code of Ukraine.
What else should the courts check?
The Supreme Court noted that previous courts had not actually examined:
- explanations of the persons whom the inspectors found during the inspection;
- the circumstances of the actual performance of the work;
- the start date of individual employees;
- documents regarding payment of social security tax, personal income tax and military duty;
- the reality of suspension of employment contracts;
- whether the employees were discovered by employees of other tenant enterprises.
Without examining this evidence, it was premature to conclude that the prescription was illegal.
That is why the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial.
Practical significance of the resolution
This decision is one of the most important in the field of state control over compliance with labor legislation in 2026.
The Supreme Court effectively confirmed that:
- the labor inspector is not limited to checking only one applicant;
- during the inspection, the employment relationships of other employees may be investigated;
- all places of actual activity of the employer can be checked;
- Formal procedural shortcomings in themselves do not nullify the results and courts must examine the real content of the employment relationship, and not be limited to procedural issues.
Conclusion
- The Supreme Court's ruling of July 20, 2026 once again confirms: the main goal of state control is the effective protection of employees' labor rights, not the formal verification of an individual complaint.
- For employers, this decision means the need to properly formalize all employment relationships, reasonably apply the mechanism for suspending employment contracts, and be willing to document the legality of their personnel decisions.
- For employees, the resolution is an important signal that during the State Labor Service inspection, other violations of labor legislation may be detected, even if they were not directly indicated in the application.