According to Tajibaev, most cases reviewed by the inspection end in favor of employees, and about 70% of court decisions are also made in the interests of employees. Moreover, even when an employee resigns "of their own accord," this does not always protect the employer, as employees can contest such terminations, and some claims are resolved in their favor.
In this situation, Tajibaev highlighted termination by mutual agreement as the most "non-conflict" and manageable way for employers if they understand that further cooperation is impossible.
"I would advise employers not to force employees to write a resignation letter but to use termination by mutual agreement — Article 41. This is a compromise option. In our practice, over the past few months, we have conducted about 10 terminations under this article — and none of them have gone to court, at least we are not aware of any," Tajibaev noted.
Kanybek Cherikov added that in small and medium-sized businesses, situations often arise where an employee is terminated "in one day," especially in trade and service sectors (for example, waiters and salespeople), when an employee is offered to leave "of their own accord" for subjective reasons. Experts emphasize that this approach increases legal risks.
Tajibaev also explained the differences between resignation and termination by mutual agreement: under the new Labor Code, an employee is required to notify the employer a month in advance, and during this period, they can withdraw their resignation — after that, termination becomes impossible. At the same time, Article 41 allows for the prior agreement of the terms of the termination of the employment contract, including compensation for the employee.
The expert emphasized that Article 41 is not "negative" for the employee and can be seen as a neutral option, especially when both parties want to end the employment relationship amicably and without disputes.
