The application of time limits for appealing to court in labor disputes represents a highly pressing issue. The existing ambiguity regarding the nature of these time limits (specifically, whether they are substantive or procedural) leads to inconsistent judicial practice. Consequently, this can result in the refusal to hear cases or the granting of claims without proper consideration of the circumstances. Despite the critical legal implications, this matter remains insufficiently explored in legal scholarship, underscoring the need for further in-depth research and development. The objective of this article is to investigate and analyze judicial practice concerning the application of time limits for appealing to court in labor disputes. This research aims to augment the existing body of scientific literature on this topic. Our research has revealed that in legal practice, the terminology “time limit for appealing to court” (Labor Code of Ukraine) and “statute of limitations” (Civil Code of Ukraine) are often used interchangeably. However, an analysis of the correlation between time limits in the Labor Code of Ukraine and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, which regulate related labor and public service relations, uncovers conflicting approaches to determining their nature: they are treated as both substantive and procedural. This duality is also evident in judicial practice, where procedural time limits (such as preclusive periods) can directly impact substantive legal relationships, while substantive time limits (statutes of limitations) can be reinstated, contrary to established understandings. It was found that the Supreme Court, in its rulings, is often compelled to adopt a flexible application of these time limits, even when it contradicts their classical legal nature. This indicates that the time limit for appealing to court in labor (and public service) disputes possesses a dual, mixed nature, combining elements of both substantive and procedural law. It simultaneously protects rights (the substantive aspect) and ensures procedural efficiency. Based on the conducted analysis, we conclude that when determining the rules for applying time limits in labor disputes, one should be guided exclusively by the general principles and understanding of labor law, rather than civil law. It is proposed that statutes of limitations in labor law should be recognized as a distinct type of time limit for appealing to court. We suggest that all aspects concerning the application of time limits in labor disputes be regulated directly within the Labor Code of Ukraine, and that these norms be extended to all labor relations in Ukraine as general rules for statutes of limitations. Furthermore, we recommend explicitly prohibiting the application of the Civil Code of Ukraine’s norms to statutes of limitations in labor disputes, as they do not align with the essence of labor relations. An exception may only apply to mixed labor and civil law relations, where the civil law statute of limitations could be applied subsidiarity.

Journal articles

1. Korolenko V, ‘Deiaki shliakhy optymizatsii rehuliuvannia strokiv zvernennia do sudu za vyrishenniam indyvidualnykh trudovykh sporiv’ [2010] 10 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 99–103 (in Ukrainian).

2. Lazor V, ‘Rehuliuvannia strokiv pozovnoi davnosti pry vyrishenni indyvidualnykh trudovykh sporiv’ [2003] 8 Pravo Ukrainy 78–80 (in Ukrainian).

3. Shuryn O, Petryk S, ‘Osoblyvosti rozghliadu i vyrishennia indyvidualnykh trudovykh sporiv v poriadku tsyvilnoho sudochynstva’ [2018] 11 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 41–44 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

4. Nepochatykh V, ‘Rozghliad trudovykh sporiv u poriadku tsyvilnoho sudochynstva sudamy pershoi instantsii’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2016) 16 (in Ukrainian).