Labor Law Tasks (2)

Task No. 1. Locksmith Sokolov was drafted into the Armed Forces on June 20, 2017. Ivanov was taken in his place. In connection with the demobilization due to health reasons, Sokolov returned to the factory on August 10, 2017 and demanded that he be given his previous job. The administration refused him this, citing the fact that Ivanov, who was not in his place, was coping with the labor duties assigned to him. Sokolov turned to the prosecutor with a request to restore him to his previous job.
How to resolve this dispute?

Task No. 2. Pershina filed a lawsuit with the Municipal Institution “Integrated Social Service Center” with a claim for reinstatement, payment of forced absenteeism, compensation for non-pecuniary damage, indicating that she had written a letter of resignation under the threat of dismissal under paragraph 5 of article .81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, had no real desire to quit, did not allow violations of labor discipline.
The representative of the defendant stated in objection that Pershina had committed a violation of labor discipline, the employer had reason and intention to dismiss the plaintiff under paragraph 5 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the plaintiffs were selected with explanatory notes, the order No. 11-k dated May 20, 2017 was issued on dismissal under clause 5 of article 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, but in connection with the receipt of the application by L. Pershina on the voluntary dismissal, order No. 11-k of May 20, 2017 was canceled and dismissal was made according to Article 80 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation from May 23, 2017.
Evaluate the parties ’submissions. Are the circumstances when the plaintiff commits guilty acts and the existence of grounds for issuing order No. 11-k legally relevant in resolving the present case? What decision should the court make?

Task No. 3. On May 5, 2017, when resolving the lawsuit on reinstating the category 2 design engineers Rekhina, Semin, Rybalko, who were dismissed on March 3, 2017 to reduce staff, it was found that on March 1, 2017, a vacancy was opened for the position design engineer of the 3rd category (the only one), which was not offered to the plaintiffs.
The defendant stated in objection that the position of design engineer of category 3 was vacant from March 1, 2017 to March 4, 2017, and on March 5, 2017, the disabled person Laptev, who continues to work, was accepted for the indicated position, the vacant position was one and only one contractible could be arranged on it.
Is this violation of the order of dismissal grounds for restoring plaintiffs to work? Prepare the operative part of the decision.

Task No. 4. Lyalin, who worked as a driver of a GAZ-53-fuel truck, in connection with the refusal on May 6, 2017 to go on a flight for gasoline, by order of May 7, 2017 for "repeated violation of labor discipline and failure to comply with the chairman’s order," . as a disciplinary sanction transferred by the machine operator. The plaintiff did not agree with the transfer and refused to work. By order of May 10, 2017, Lyalin was fired for absenteeism.
Is Lialin´s dismissal legal?
What is the order of dismissal for truancy?

tasks, labor, labor law, decision, control, student assistance, analysis, labor code