According to Tajibaev, the majority of appeals considered by the inspection end in favor of employees, and in courts, about 70% of decisions are also made in the interests of employees. Moreover, resignation by one's own desire does not always protect the employer, as employees can challenge such decisions, and some cases end in their favor.
In this situation, Article 41, which regulates termination by mutual agreement, stands out as the most "non-conflictual" mechanism, especially when further work becomes impossible.
“I would advise against forcing an employee to write a resignation letter ‘of their own accord’ and instead to formalize the termination by mutual agreement under Article 41. This is a compromise approach. In our practice over the past few months, we have conducted about 10 such terminations, and none of them have led to legal disputes, at least to our knowledge,” noted Tajibaev.
Kanybek Cherikov added that in the small and medium business sector, there are often cases where termination occurs "in one day," especially in trade and services (for example, waiters, salespeople). In such situations, employees are offered to write a resignation letter "of their own accord" for subjective reasons, which, according to experts, creates additional legal risks.
Tajibaev also explained the differences between resignation by one's own desire and by mutual agreement: according to the new Labor Code, the notice period is one month, and the employee can withdraw their application during this time, making termination impossible. In contrast, Article 41 allows the parties to agree in advance on the terms of the termination of the employment contract, including possible compensation for the employee.
Additionally, the expert noted that Article 41 has no negative consequences for the employee and can be used as a neutral option, especially if both parties seek to end the employment relationship peacefully and without conflict.
