Right to Informational Peace in Ukraine: Can Employees Ignore Work Chats After Hours
Video conferences, endless work chats, messages in messengers late at night, tasks “for tomorrow” after 10 p.m. all of this has long become part of everyday reality. The pandemic, remote work, and later blackouts only accelerated this process. The workplace dissolved into the online space, and along with it, clear time boundaries faded. Against this backdrop, the news about the introduction of the concept of the “right to informational peace” in the draft of the new Civil Code does not look like a minor technical amendment, but rather an attempt to legally define the boundary between work and private life.
The draft of the new Civil Code of Ukraine introduces Article 337, which establishes the possibility for an employee not to participate in work, service, or other communications during non-working hours, on weekends and holidays, during leave, or outside the time defined by contract. The key clarification is that exercising this right cannot serve as grounds for disciplinary action, worsening of working conditions, deprivation of bonuses, or any other negative consequences. In practice, this means that an employee has the right not to respond to messages, calls, or emails after the end of the working day and this cannot be treated as a violation.
However, the provision also contains exceptions. The right to informational peace may be limited in cases of threats to national security, public order, the need to protect health, prevent accidents, or avoid harm to the lives of others. It is clear that for medical workers, emergency responders, police officers, or the armed forces, this guarantee would function differently. It is also stated that the provision may not apply in cases предусмотренных by contract. This point is already sparking debate, as it creates room for special conditions in employment agreements.
Is this truly a new right
Formally, certain elements of protection already exist. Since 2021, the Labor Code has included the concept of a “disconnection period” for employees working remotely. During this period, an employee may interrupt information and telecommunications communication with the employer without violating labor discipline. However, this rule applies only to remote workers. Article 337 of the draft Civil Code expands the approach and seeks to establish a general principle: working time is a paid resource, and free time must be protected. In addition, Article 301 of the current Civil Code guarantees a person’s right to private life. But it does not account for the specifics of digital communication, where work and personal space merge. In this sense, the new article is an attempt to adapt the law to digital reality.
After the shift to remote formats, many companies effectively moved to a model of constant availability. Messages in messengers became the norm. Online meetings filled calendars. Time “outside work” began to look conditional. Formally, an employee may refuse to respond. In practice, this often means risking a bonus, receiving a negative evaluation, or being excluded from the informal circle of the team. This is where the issue of balance arises. Is a message after 6 p.m. a sign of business efficiency? Or is it a symptom of a culture where boundaries are not respected? The new provision essentially emphasizes that 24/7 availability cannot be considered the standard.
In EU countries, the concept of the “right to disconnect” has already been discussed and partially implemented. The idea is simple: digital tools should not turn the working day into a continuous process. The Ukrainian draft does not copy European models, but it moves in the same direction recognizing that digitalization requires new legal boundaries.
Where problems may arise
The most controversial element is the possibility of defining other conditions in the contract. If employers begin to systematically include clauses requiring mandatory availability during non-working hours, the purpose of the innovation may be undermined. In that case, the balance will depend not only on the wording of the article, but also on its practical application and court interpretation. Another aspect is enforcement. How can pressure on an employee be proven? How can voluntary participation in communication be distinguished from implicit obligation?
Post List
Will corporate culture change
Even if Article 337 is adopted, it will not instantly transform behavior. But it sets a framework. When the right to informational peace becomes part of civil legislation, it becomes harder for an employer to appeal to “corporate traditions” or “team spirit” as justification for constant availability. For the employee, this means having a legal basis not just a moral argument, but a norm of law.
The draft of the new Civil Code has not yet been adopted. But the very appearance of such an article signals a shift in approach. For a long time, the dominant model in Ukraine allowed personal time to be easily adjusted to work demands. Now legislation is attempting to fix a different principle: private space is not an extension of the office. This is not a revolution. It is a gradual step. Yet symbolically, it is important.
If Article 337 is adopted in its proposed wording, an employer will no longer be able to demand work outside working hours as a default norm. For many employees, this could become a long-awaited signal: free time is not a hidden part of the work schedule. In the digital era, the boundary between work and life has become not an individual issue, but a systemic one. That is why the attempt to formalize the “right to informational peace” looks like a logical response to challenges that have long gone beyond individual companies.
About the Author
Related posts:
The New Labor Code and Employment Reform: What the State Is Really Changing in Ukraine’s Labor Market 
“Code 95”: How New European Requirements Are Changing the Rules for Ukrainian International Drivers 
How work is changing globally and why Ukraine’s path is different 
The Four-Day Workweek in Ukraine: Facts, Myths, and What the Law Really Says
