A former employee of Mobile Telecom-Service LLP, which operates under the Tele2 Kazakhstan brand, Denis Zhornov is contesting his dismissal, which relates to the alleged disclosure of information protected by law. After 15 years with the company, he intends to seek the annulment of the dismissal order in court.
HOW THE DISPUTE AROSE
According to Hronika.kz, Denis Zhornov was responsible for the implementation of the 1C:ZUP programme. In his account, work with personal data was carried out within the framework of an approved project, and remote access to information resources for the contracting organisation had been agreed in advance by the company's information security service.
On 2 February 2026, the information security service recorded that an employee of the contracting organisation involved in the project had viewed information. According to the investigation materials, which the editorial team has seen, the contractor's employee allegedly took screenshots during a remote session.
Denis Zhornov maintains that he did not independently transfer the database to any third party. According to him, the contractor worked through agreed remote access and had signed a non-disclosure undertaking.
WHY THE EMPLOYEE WAS DISMISSED
On 26 February 2026, the company launched an internal investigation. On 4 March, Zhornov was asked for written explanations, and the following day he presented his position, citing project documents. In his claim, the specification provided for the transfer of personal data and information on average salaries.
The employment contract was terminated on 29 May 2026 under subparagraph 15, paragraph 1, Article 52 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Termination of an employment contract on the initiative of the employer") — in connection with the disclosure of legally protected secrets.
At the same time, Zhornov insists that the actual actions that became the subject of the investigation were carried out by an employee of the contracting organisation. According to him, once he was informed of the unauthorised access, he ordered that the contractor's access be blocked.
WHAT THE CONCILIATION COMMISSION AND THE INSPECTORATE DECIDED
During the same period, Zhornov received a separate disciplinary sanction relating to a complaint from the chief accountant about the operation of the 1C system. The conciliation commission later found this severe reprimand to be unjustified and overturned it in full, noting the absence of sufficient evidence of the employee's guilt.
However, the commission upheld the dismissal relating to the 1C:ZUP incident.
Zhornov also appealed to the labour inspectorate, which, according to the source materials, found no violations. After that, the former employee filed a complaint with the prosecutor's office.
WHAT THE DISPUTE OVER TIME LIMITS INVOLVES
A separate issue concerns the time limits for applying the disciplinary sanction. The violation by the contractor's employee was discovered on 2 February, explanations were requested from Zhornov in early March, and the dismissal was formalised on 29 May.
Zhornov himself believes that the employer missed the statutory deadline for imposing the disciplinary sanction. The court must provide the final assessment of these arguments.
WHAT THE FORMER EMPLOYEE SAYS
Denis Zhornov said the dismissal came as a shock to him and has affected his professional reputation. According to him, over 15 years with the company, he had never previously received disciplinary sanctions or reprimands from management.
The former employee considers court proceedings necessary to protect his name and to challenge the lawfulness of the dismissal.
The circumstances of the employment dispute and the arguments of both parties will now be examined in court.
