IF THE EMPLOYEE AGREES TO SHORTEN THE NOTICE PERIOD, DOESN'T THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO BE FULFILLED? The employee failed the certification test and was found unfit for his position. The employer issued a 2-week notice in order to terminate the employment contract with him, in accordance with Article 165 of the Labor Code. 2 days later, the employee wrote an application and requested to change the notice period to paid compensation. As a result, the employment contract with the employee was terminated with a shortened notice period, in accordance with Clause 3 of Part 2 of Article 161 of the Labor Code. Later, the employee learned that his employment contract had been terminated without being offered any vacant position. However, in accordance with Part 4 of Article 144 of the Labor Code, if an employee is found unfit for his position based on his qualifications, the employer must offer him a vacant position requiring slightly less qualifications. When the employee filed a lawsuit for reinstatement, this very issue was at the center of the court proceedings. The employer's representatives stated that the employee himself had filed a petition requesting payment of compensation in lieu of notice, and accordingly, the employment contract had been terminated early, and therefore the employee had not been offered another job. The organization's lawyer explained that in such cases, the employer is not obliged to offer the employee another job. However, the court ultimately ruled to reinstate the employee. The court explained its decision as follows: "Article 144 of the Labor Code contains provisions on offering another job before terminating an employment contract on special grounds. This article states that the employer is obliged to offer a job when the employment contract is terminated in accordance with paragraph 3 of part two of article 161 of the Labor Code. The employer terminated the employment contract precisely at the initiative of the employer and in accordance with paragraph 3 of part two of article 161 of the Labor Code. Therefore, in any case, the employee was obliged to be offered a vacant job that was in accordance with the employee's specialty and required a slightly lower qualification, in accordance with part four of article 144 of the Labor Code. During the court hearing, it became clear that there were not one, but three such vacancies in the organization. If the employer had offered another job and the employee had rejected this offer, the termination of the employment contract would have been justified. However, the employer did not offer these jobs to the employee. Another thing: the employee did not give notice of the termination of the notice period The fact that an application for compensation has been filed does not relieve the employer of the obligation to offer another job. Because neither Article 144 nor other norms provide for such exceptions. Moreover, an employee's application for replacing the notice period with compensation is not considered a fact of refusal of another vacant position. This is because, according to Part Six of Article 144 of the Labor Code, when an offer is not accepted, this situation is considered a fact of refusal. And the employer, as we said above, did not make any offer to the employee. Thus, the employer committed violations of the law when terminating the employment contract. " Shokirjon DADABOEV, Chief Legal Counsel of the District Justice Department of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan