The Appellate Board of the Astana City Court reinstated an employee of Nursultan Nazarbayev International Airport JSC in the position of head of the document management department. The court overturned the first-instance decision, ruled the dismissal unlawful and recovered from the employer about KZT 7 million for the period of forced absence from work.
WHY THE LABOUR DISPUTE AROSE
In July 2026, the Inter-District Civil Court dismissed the employee's claim against the capital's international airport.
The dispute arose after a change in the enterprise's organisational structure. Instead of her former position as head of the document management department, the employee was offered a position as a specialist in another division. She declined the vacancy, after which the employer terminated her employment contract on 6 April 2026.
WHAT THE APPELLATE BOARD ESTABLISHED
The judicial board concluded that the proposed position entailed a change in the employment function and was in effect a transfer to another job.
At the same time, the employer had not obtained the employee's consent to the transfer. Her refusal of the proposed vacancy likewise could not be regarded as a refusal to continue the employment relationship.
The court drew particular attention to the date on which the job description for the new division was approved. The document was approved on 9 April 2026, that is, three days after the employee's dismissal. The employer did not prove that there were lawful grounds for terminating the employment contract.
WHAT DECISION THE COURT MADE
The appellate instance overturned the first-instance decision and issued a new ruling. The court declared the order terminating the employment contract unlawful and annulled it, and reinstated the claimant in her former position as head of the document management department.
In addition, the airport was ordered to pay wages for six months of forced absence from work — about KZT 7 million. The judicial act entered into legal force.
THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT
After the decision was announced, lawyer Sergey Sizintsev reported that, as at the time of its publication, three working days had passed, but the employer, according to him, had not yet issued an order reinstating the employee or paid the awarded sums.
The lawyer also stated that the reinstated employee was coming to the workplace but was not provided with a computer or her former duties. He stressed that actual admission to work is a mandatory part of enforcing a court decision.
As the legal basis, Sizintsev cited paragraph 2 of Article 161 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Enforcement of decisions on reinstatement at work"), which provides for immediate enforcement of a reinstatement decision.
The lawyer also referred to paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Law "On Enforcement Proceedings and the Status of Judicial Officers". According to the provision he cited, enforcement is considered complete after the employee's actual admission to their former duties and the issuance by the employer of the corresponding act.
According to the lawyer, paragraph 1 of that article provides for the recovery of earnings for the period of delay in enforcement and a penalty of 10 MRP for each day of delay from a legal entity.
