Wartime Labor Conflicts: Capitulation Under Patriotic Sauce

At the end of 2021, Ukraine introduced mediation – an out-of-court dispute resolution procedure that works successfully around the world. In countries with a developed legal system, mediation is truly effective: faster than court, cheaper, confidential, with preservation of relationships between parties. Article 222-1 of the Labor Code opened the possibility to apply this tool in labor disputes as well – theoretically this is progress, a European standard, an alternative to overburdened courts.

But theory and practice are different things. At defense enterprises in wartime, mediation transforms into a tool opposite to its purpose. Instead of fair compromise – cover for systemic violations of labor legislation. Instead of balance of interests – pressure on workers under the sauce of patriotic rhetoric. Instead of voluntary settlement – coercion to capitulation.

The problem is not in the mediation procedure itself. It can and should be useful where there is equality of parties, independent mediators and real alternatives. The problem is in how exactly defense enterprises use this procedure to legitimize violations of workers’ rights.

“Don’t Interfere With the Army” as an Argument Against Defense Enterprise Workers

Defense enterprises in wartime conditions have received a unique tool for pressuring workers: appeal to national interests. Any worker’s claim – even quite legitimate – can be reframed as “interference with production for the army.” And mediation becomes an ideal platform for such reframing.

A worker refers to Article 65 of the Labor Code regarding overtime pay. The employer responds not with legal arguments, but with an appeal to context: “You understand that the enterprise works for the needs of the front? Every hour of downtime is equipment not received by the army. If we start litigating over overtime now, it will divert resources from production.” A legal problem (violation of the Labor Code) is transformed into a moral dilemma (patriotism versus personal interests).

In the confidential setting of mediation, without witnesses and recording, such rhetoric works especially effectively. The worker finds themselves in a position where defending their legal rights looks like an act of unpatriotism. “On the front they don’t complain about conditions, and you’re here about some overtime.” “Your colleagues also work overtime but don’t create problems.” “Now is not the time for petty calculations.”

Enterprises consciously use mediation precisely for such manipulations. Formally, they offer a civilized way to settle a dispute. In fact, they create a situation in which the worker is forced to either capitulate or accept responsibility for “damage to defense capability.” And after signing a confidential agreement, the employer can point out: “We offered mediation, the worker voluntarily agreed to settlement.” How exactly this “consent” was obtained – remains behind closed doors.

This is not random excesses of individual employers. This is systemic practice that uses mediation not for its purpose – not for fair compromise, but for legitimizing violations of labor legislation under the cover of “voluntary agreement” and “national interests.”

Overtime, Workplace Safety, Payments: What Gets Mediated and What Gets Hidden

Enterprises demonstrate amazing selectivity in which conflicts they are ready to bring to mediation. Interpersonal misunderstandings between workers, vacation schedule issues, individual disciplinary situations – all this is mediated willingly. But as soon as it concerns systemic violations of legislation, the picture changes.

Systematic non-payment of overtime. When a worker tries to resolve the issue of unpaid overtime through mediation, the enterprise uses a classic technique: transforms an individual dispute into a “threat to the entire collective.” “You’re not the only one in such a situation. If we pay you extra according to the Labor Code, we’ll have to pay everyone extra. The enterprise won’t withstand such expenses.”

A worker who simply wants to receive what Article 106 of the Labor Code guarantees suddenly becomes “the one who threatens the financial stability of the enterprise.” Mediation ends with symbolic compensation (much less than lawful), a confidential agreement, and the practice of non-payment of overtime continues. The employer can even report “successful application of mediation,” hiding the fact that the systemic violation remained unresolved.

Workplace safety violations. Enterprises use wartime as a universal justification for non-compliance with occupational safety requirements. Not enough shelters? “Equipped according to norms for official headcount.” Actually more people work? “Temporary situation due to urgent state order.” Protective equipment provided late? “Objective difficulties with supplies in wartime conditions.”

When a worker tries to raise these issues, the enterprise shifts the conversation to the plane of “objective circumstances that must be endured for victory.” Violation of the “Occupational Safety Law” is masked with rhetoric about military necessity. Mediation becomes not a means of solving the problem, but a tool for hiding it.

Wage payment delays. Article 38 of the Labor Code gives a worker the right to suspend work if wages are delayed for more than a month. But enterprises through mediation achieve that workers “voluntarily refuse” this right. “Financing is delayed due to bureaucratic procedures,” “technical problems with the bank,” “redistribution of priorities” – promises are vague, deadlines indefinite.

A worker who agrees to “wait another month” actually refuses their legal right. When after a month the situation doesn’t change – the procedure repeats. Mediation is used not to solve the problem, but to buy time and avoid consequences of violating labor legislation.

Discriminatory dismissals. The most cynical use of mediation – in cases of dismissal of workers who actively defended colleagues’ rights. Formally everything is legal: staff reduction, procedure compliance. But when a month later a similar vacancy appears under a different name – the connection becomes obvious.

The enterprise offers such workers “settlement through mediation” – compensation for silence. The worker signs a confidential agreement, receives several salaries and disappears. Others see the result: “criticized – got fired.” But details remain behind closed doors. The enterprise can claim that it “reached agreement with the worker,” hiding the repressive nature of the dismissal.

Confidentiality as a Tool for Hiding Systemic Violations

Enterprises actively exploit the principle of mediation confidentiality to hide the scale of labor legislation violations. What would become public in court proceedings and create a precedent, in mediation remains a private matter of two parties.

Dispersing collective problems. When dozens of workers face the same problem – systematic compensation delays, safety violations, non-payment of overtime – but each solves it individually through confidential mediation, the systemic problem breaks down into multiple “individual cases.” No worker knows how many others faced the same thing. The union doesn’t see the picture. Labor inspection doesn’t receive signals.

The enterprise can even report “high mediation efficiency” – look how many disputes settled without court! The fact that all these disputes have a common cause – systemic violation of legislation by the enterprise itself – remains hidden. Mediation is used as a tool for atomizing workers, transforming a collective problem into a multitude of individual “agreements.”

Blocking public control. A court decision is public – it can be quoted in media, studied by the public, used as precedent. If a court recognizes an enterprise’s violation of labor legislation, this becomes a fact of public space. Other workers can refer to this decision, journalists can write about systemic problems at the enterprise.

A mediation agreement is a private arrangement protected by confidentiality. An enterprise can systematically violate the rights of dozens of workers, settling each case through confidential mediation with minimal compensation. Publicly this will look like “an enterprise successfully using civilized dispute resolution methods.” The real scale of violations remains invisible.

Differentiated conditions without precedent. In court proceedings, practice is formed – similar cases receive similar resolution. Enterprises use mediation confidentiality to avoid this unification. An active union activist who can create problems is offered better conditions for quick settlement. A quiet worker in an identical situation – minimum.

Both sign confidential agreements with non-disclosure clauses. The result depends not on legal norms and not on the essence of the claim, but on the negotiating power of the specific worker. The enterprise creates a system where justice is replaced by “individual agreements” controlled by the employer.

Patriotic rhetoric without witnesses. The most cynical use of confidentiality is the ability to apply patriotic rhetoric without risk of public condemnation. No recording, no transcript, no ability to quote what was said. The enterprise can pressure a worker with arguments that would look unacceptable in public space:

“A public scandal around this issue will harm the enterprise working for defense. Are you ready to take such responsibility?”

“If you go to court, it will lead to inspections and diversion of resources from production for the army.”

“Your colleagues are in the same situation but don’t create problems. Why do you consider yourself special?”

In court such argumentation doesn’t work – law remains law regardless of context. In confidential mediation this is presented as a “realistic view of the situation.” And the worker is forced to either agree or become “the one who doesn’t understand state interests.”

Enterprises also actively use the fact that the mediator is usually paid by the employer. Even if the mediator follows professional ethics, the very fact of the payment source creates subtle pressure. The enterprise can choose “convenient” mediators with whom relationships have already been established, who “understand the enterprise’s specifics,” who “don’t create unnecessary problems.”

“Voluntary Agreement” Under Coercion

Enterprises masterfully use the formal voluntariness of mediation to create the appearance of worker consent. After signing the agreement, the employer can claim: “The worker voluntarily agreed to these conditions. We didn’t impose anything. This was a free choice of both parties.”

But what stands behind this “voluntariness”?

First, refusal of mediation is interpreted as “unwillingness to meet halfway,” “creating conflict,” “misunderstanding of enterprise interests in difficult times.” Formally the worker is free to refuse. In fact, such refusal has reputational consequences, affects further relations with the employer, can become a factor in future decisions.

Second, enterprises use mediation “flexibility” to achieve workers’ refusal of legal rights. Article 106 of the Labor Code provides for overtime pay at double rate – this is not a wish, but a legal norm. In mediation, a worker is offered a “compromise”: compensation at 1.5 times rate “but quickly, without court costs, with preservation of good relations.”

Formally this looks like achieving a balance of interests. In fact – this is the worker’s refusal of part of their legal rights, formalized as a “mutually beneficial agreement.” “Flexibility” turns out to be a euphemism for capitulation under pressure of circumstances.

Third, enterprises consciously create a situation in which the worker has no real alternatives. Court proceedings are long and expensive. Labor inspection in wartime conditions works limitedly. The possibility to change jobs is blocked by reservation from mobilization. In such a situation, “voluntary consent” to unfavorable mediation conditions becomes not a free choice, but a forced decision due to lack of better options.

Enterprises exploit this hopelessness, hiding behind the formal voluntariness of the procedure. “Nobody forced anyone,” “the worker agreed themselves,” “this was a joint agreement” – behind these formulations hides the reality of structural coercion.

Systemic Consequences: Normalization of Violations Under Cover of “Civilized Procedures”

The most dangerous effect of such use of mediation is the normalization of labor legislation violations. Enterprises create a system in which violation of the Labor Code becomes routine, settled through “confidential agreements” with minimal costs and without public consequences.

Workers get used to the fact that their legal rights are an initial bargaining position from which a “reasonable person” should retreat. Employers get used to the fact that systematic violations can be covered by mediation, which is presented as a “European standard” and “civilized approach.” Labor legislation effectively stops working, being replaced by a system of private agreements under the control of the stronger party.

Bill No. 12034 “On Collective Labor Disputes” provides for mandatory pre-trial settlement. In conditions where mediation has already become a tool for pressuring workers, such mandatory nature can turn into an additional obstacle to protecting rights. Workers will be forced to “undergo” a procedure in which they are systematically pushed to capitulation under the sauce of patriotism.

Worst of all, this all happens under the cover of progressive terminology. Mediation is presented as an achievement, as a step toward European standards, as care for the interests of both parties. Enterprises report “successful application of alternative dispute resolution methods,” hiding the fact that they use these methods to legitimize exploitation.

Defense of the country begins with defense of the rights of those who defend it. Workers of defense factories who provide for the army are also part of defense. Systematic violation of their labor rights under cover of military necessity and civilized procedures is not strengthening the rear, but undermining it.

Mediation is a useful tool that can help fair dispute settlement. But when enterprises turn it into a technology for forcing workers to capitulate under patriotic sauce – this is no longer mediation in its true meaning. This is abuse of a procedure that should serve justice.