Staff turnover

The average turnover rate is quite low, which indicates the stability of the Company’s staff. This is the result of ongoing measures to build a corporate culture, increase employee loyalty, and ensure a decent level of income and social package.

The high level of turnover in the ‘Service’ segment in Russia is a result of measures to increase labor productivity at Giprovostokneft and the termination of fixed-term employment contracts with Zarubezhneftestroymontazh and RMNTK Nefteotdacha, while the high turnover in the ‘Refining and Sales’ segment is associated with measures to increase the efficiency of activities at branches and representative offices due to a small number of employees.

Overall, active staff turnover at the Group decreased in 2020 compared with 2019 and amounted to 3.5%.

STAFF TURNOVER BY BUSINESS IN 2020, %
Active
Full
ACTIVE TURNOVER BY COUNTRY OF OPERATION, %
Country of operation 2018 2019 2020 +/–
Russia 9.3 8.9 8.0 -0.9
Vietnam 1.8 1.3 1.1 -0.2
Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) 1.6 3.2 1.1 -2.1
Cuba 0.0 0.0 11.1 11.1
Uzbekistan 0.0 0.0 22.2 22.2
TOTAL FOR THE GROUP 4.0 4.0 3.5 -0.5
FULL STAFF TURNOVER BY COUNTRY OF OPERATION, %
Country of operation 2018 2019 2020 +/–
Russia 15.9 22.9 23.4 0.5
Vietnam 4.1 3.5 5.2 1.7
Republic of Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) 6.7 21.8 16.1 -5.7
Cuba 54.5 36.4 44.4 8.0
Uzbekistan 0.0 0.0 29.6 29.6
TOTAL FOR THE GROUP 8.2 12.5 12.8 0.3

The level of full staff turnover increased slightly in 2020 and amounted to 12.8% (12.5% in 2019), which is mainly due to the retirement of JV Vietsovpetro employees (including early retirement) as part of measures to improve operational efficiency.

The high staff turnover rate in Cuba is due to the small number of employees in the region. The high level of both active and full turnover in Uzbekistan is associated with a small number of enterprises (less than 100 people) and the fact that most of the recruitment for the team of JV ANDIJANPETRO, which was established in August 2019, took place in 2020.

STRUCTURE OF EMPLOYEES DISMISSED IN 2020 (FOR ALL REASONS), %
By country of operation
By segment
By position category
By gender
By age composition