Electronic personnel document management: from legal experiment to practice

The subject. The introduction of electronic technologies into management processes has led to the need to regulate the issues of the use of electronic personnel document management (further - EPDM). In the spring of 2020, Russia was conducting a legal experiment on the use of electronic documents related to work. As part of this experiment, according to the rules established by federal law, individual employers voluntarily refuse to issue certain types of personnel documents in paper form. It concerned employment contract and other contracts with an employee (on financial responsibility, apprenticeship), a vacation schedule, employee statements, as well as regulatory and organizational and administrative documents of the employer on labor (orders on admission, dismissals, penalties, etc.). The results of this experiment became the basis for the introduction of appropriate amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The main purpose of the study is to develop recommendations for improving the current labor legislation for the legalization of electronic personnel document management as part of a system of measures to achieve the maximum balance of interests of employees and employers.

The main methods of the research are the analysis and generalization of judicial practice on labor disputes related to the evaluation of electronic evidence, the practice of using electronic personnel document management by individual employers, both participating and not participating in the legal experiment conducted at the federal level.

The main results, scope of application. The preliminary results of above mentioned experiment have been summarized and an assessment of the validity and potential effectiveness of the draft law submitted to the Russian Federal Assembly has been given. The authors propose the results of a critical analysis of the interim results of the legal experiment on the introduction of EPDM. The authors demonstrate the pros and cons of electronic document management in terms of the readiness of the current legislation for it, as well as subjects of labor relations. The innovations of the prepared draft law on the introduction of a new article 22.1 to the Russian Labor Code as well as its positive aspects and some shortcomings are considered. Not only legal and technical shortcomings are indicated, but also some fundamental substantive contradictions. For example, a negligent attitude to the involvement of employees in making managerial decisions in the social and labor sphere due to the establishment of a trade union monopoly in a number of issues of social dialogue when introducing electronic personnel document management. The draft law does not consistently address issues related to security, enhanced qualified signature and the costs associated with obtaining it by an employee. The modern attitude of Russian courts to electronic evidence in labor disputes is demonstrated by the example of judicial practice. These examples demonstrate the most pressing issues of the introduction and use of EPDM, which need to be resolved at the legislative level. There is a need for effective protection of all participants in labor relations in the context of the development of digital technologies and their implementation in the daily life of each person.

Conclusions. Adoption of new federal law regulating EPDM was necessary to establish general rules for employee-employer interaction in the digital environment, as well as for legalization of the exchange of electronic documents as a way of labor management.

1. Kurennoy A., Kostyan I., Khnykin G. Digital economy of Russia. Electronic office work of labor relations. EZhYurist, 2017, no. 37, p. 10. (In Russ.).

2. Kostyan I.A., Kurennoy A.M., Khnykin G.V. Labor law and the digital economy: do they go together? Trudovoe pravo v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2017, no. 4, pp. 10–13. (In Russ.).

3. Teshima D. Document Management Systems Turn Haystacks into Gold Mines. Los Angeles Lawyer, 1997, no. 20, p. 46.

4. Harris Sh.B., McVoy P.H. (eds.). E-Discovery & Digital Information Management, The Sedona Conference Glossary, A Project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention & Production (WG1) and the RFP+ Group, 4th Ed. The Sedona Conference Publ., 2014. 51 p. Available at: https://www.wlrk.com/docs/TheSedonaConferenceGlossaryEDiscoveryDigitalInformationManagementFourthEdition.pdf (accessed: 20.08.2020).

5. Valeev D.Kh., Nuriev A.G. Electronic document flow in the sphere of justice in the digital economy. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Yuridicheskie nauki = Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences, 2019, iss. 45, pp. 467–489. DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-45-467-489. (In Russ.).

6. Mathiesen K. Human Rights for the Digital Age. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 2014, vol. 29, iss. 1, pp. 2–18.

7. Zykina T.A. The influence of digital reality on the regulation of labor relations. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal, 2021, no. 41, pp. 159–170. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/41/14. (In Russ.).

8. Potapova N.D., Potapov A.V. On the issue of digitalization of labor relations: theoretical and practical aspects. Digital law, 2021, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 45–64. DOI: 10.38044/2686-9136-2021-2-2-45-64. (In Russ.).

9. Kursova O.A. Risk-based approach in labor law regulation as a new type of legal impact. Gosudarstvo i pravo, 2019, no. 5, pp. 112–122. DOI: 10.31857/S013207690004867-5. (In Russ.).

10. Sobolev E.N. The problem of disintegration of the working class in the context of the Marxist concept. Ekonomika i sotsiologiya, 2018, no. 37, pp. 7–11. (In Russ.).

11. Vartanyants T.A., Starokozheva V.P. Implementation of electronic personnel document management: essence, risks, opportunities. Sotsial'no-trudovye issledovaniya, 2019, no. 1 (34), pp. 145–156. (In Russ.).

12. Sturdy D. Enterprise Content Management. Legal Information Management, 2007, no. 7, pp. 160–164.

13. Curry S. Washington's Electronic Signature Act: an Anachronism in the New Millennium. Washington Law Review, 2013, vol. 88, iss. 2, pp. 559–590.

14. Korkin A. Number vs paper. We draw up personnel documents in electronic form. Korporativnyi yurist, 2017, no. 10, pp. 24–28. (In Russ.).

15. Nizhegorodtsev O. Electronic documents in labor disputes. Kadrovaya sluzhba i upravlenie personalom predpriyatiya, 2018, no. 6, pp. 25–35. (In Russ.).

16. Slesarev S. SMS and messengers in a labor dispute. Trudovoe pravo, 2018, no. 1, pp. 5–16. (In Russ.).

17. Zaitseva L.V., Sukhova N.V. Electronic evidence in the field of labor dispute resolution: challenges of law enforcement and problems of legal science. Gosudarstvo i pravo, 2019, iss. 8, pp. 43–52. DOI: 10.31857/S013207690006241-7. (In Russ.).

18. Zaitseva L.V., Sukhova N.V. Electronic evidence in civil proceedings: issues of procedural evidence. Vestnik grazhdanskogo protsessa, 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 189–204. DOI: 10.24031/2226-0781-2019-9-1-189-204. (In Russ.).

19. Zaitseva L.V. Legal aspects of the use of local electronic document management systems for the regulation of labor relations. Trudovoe pravo v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2018, no. 3, pp. 34–37. (In Russ.).

20. Tumanov A.A. Informing the employee using electronic resources of the employer. Trudovoe pravo v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2018, no. 2, pp. 18–20. (In Russ.).

21. Slesarev S. SMS and messengers in a labor dispute. Trudovoe pravo, 2018, no. 1, pp. 5–16.

22. Burke F.J. Jr., Gottlieb S.F. Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and Solutions, Sponsored with the cooperation of the ABA Section of Litigation E-Discovery, A Practical Guide To Discovery And Disclosure Of Electronically Stored Information, Ali-Aba Course Number SN063. February 2008. 93 p. Available at: https://www.alicle.org/doc/frontmatter/CN063_fm.pdf (accessed: 20.08.2020).

23. Romano L.V. VI. Electronic Evidence and the Federal Rules. Loyola Law Reviews, 2005, vol. 38, no. 4: Developments in the Law: Electronic Discovery, available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol38/iss4/6 (accessed: 20.08.2020).

24. Goode S. The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence. The Review of litigation, 2009, vol. 29, p. 1.

25. Grimm P.W., Capra D.J., Joseph G.P. Authenticating Digital Evidence. Baylor Law Review, 2017, vol. 69, available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/856 (accessed: 20.08.2020).

26. Vaypan V.A. Fundamentals of legal regulation of the digital economy. Pravo i ekonomika, 2017, no. 11, pp. 5–18. (In Russ.).

27. Ofman E.M. Electronic document flow in labor relations: problems and prospects. Vestnik YuUrGU. Seriya «Pravo», 2018, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 53–57. DOI: 10.14529/law180409. (In Russ.).

28. Ragan Ch.R., Redgrave J.M., Wagner L.A. (eds.). Best Practices & Commentary for Managing Information & Records in the Electronic Age, The Sedona Guidelines, A Project of The Sedona Conference Working Group on Best Practices for Electronic Document Retention & Production. The Sedona Conference Publ., 2005. 106 p. Available at: https://sosmt.gov/wp-content/uploads/attachments/B-SedonaGuidelines2005.pdf?dt=1485383215701&dt=1519325634100 (accessed: 20.08.2020).

29. Adams L.A. Reconsidering Spoliation Doctrine Through the Lens of Tort Law. Temple Law Review, 2012, vol. 85, no. 1, available at: https://www.templelawreview.org/comment/reconsidering-spoliation-doctrine-throughthe-lens-of-tort-law/ (accessed: 20.08.2020).

30. Collins H. Employment Law. Oxford University Press, 2003. 264 р.

31. Almaeva Yu.O. Theoretical foundations of the quality of labor legislation. Rossiiskii zhurnal pravovykh issledovaniy, 2015, no. 1, pp. 72–78. (In Russ.).