JEDDAH, 3 September 2007 — Abdulrahman is an electronics engineer in his mid-30s. He has been living and working in Saudi Arabia for the past seven years. He can’t renew his expired iqama, his bank account has been frozen, he can’t travel back to his country, he can’t work and his employer has refused to release him and pay his dues.

“I have always heard and read in newspapers about how some local Saudi companies mistreat their expatriate employees, but I rarely believed most of the stories,” said Abdulrahman’s uncle. “It is only after what happened to Abdulrahman that I really started to believe most of what was spoken and written,” he added.

Abdulrahman, a non-Saudi whose nationality is not disclosed in order not to hamper his case, signed a three-year contract with a Saudi company. He transferred his sponsorship to them in January 2004. After being with them for two years, he decided to resign because the company was constantly delaying salary payments and was not paying him his sales commissions, which had been promised in writing.

Abdulrahman took the case to the Jeddah Labor Office through a lawyer. His case has been pending for more than six months now with no action taken so far. To add to his misery, the company filed a report with the government authorities in Riyadh, where the company headquarters are, saying that the employee had absconded.

“Since I joined the company, they never paid employees their wages on time. There was always three months’ delay,” said Abdulrahman. “If you ask about the delay, the owner will say that the salary is not important.”

When Abdulrahman resigned in November 2006 and submitted his one-month notice, the company refused to pay him his end of service award and commissions that were due to him. According to the company’s report about his case — obtained by Arab News — he was not paid his due commission allegedly because he did not meet a SR10 million sales target.

However, Abdulrahman claims he has fulfilled all obligations of his employment contract despite his company constantly delaying payment of wages. “I also managed to meet my target even though there has always been a three months salary delay,” he said.

Not wanting to prolong the process further, Abdulrahman decided to forgo all his dues and requested release. The company agreed to give him the release on condition that he signs an agreement not to work for any of their competitors for a duration of five years; not to work in any job related to electronics, computers, networks, security systems and safety systems; not to transfer his sponsorship to any competitor for five years and that he forgoes his right to be recruited with a new visa for another five years.

A Saudi employer, who was interested in employing and sponsoring Abdulrahman, found the conditions to be in conflict with the Kingdom’s labor laws. Such conditions for release only serve to corner Abdulrahman further into a dead-end.

“They want me to lose hope and go back to work with them. How am I supposed to agree to a condition not to work in any profession related to electronics or computers when I’m an electronics engineer?” said Abdulrahman. “The new sponsor said that the conditions were unlawful. Everyone who has read them has told me that they’re trying to make my life difficult so that no new sponsor would agree to take me. What am I supposed to do?”

According to directive 1/111 issued by Labor Minister Ghazi Al-Gosaibi on Jan. 29, 2007, employers that have been proved to delay paying employees wages for more than two consecutive months are prohibited from recruiting new employees from abroad for a period of 12 months.

The directive further states that employees, whose wages have been delayed for more than three consecutive months, have the right to file a complaint with the Labor Office to have their sponsorships transferred to another sponsor. Furthermore, in such a situation, an employee would not be bound to the one-year contract condition related to sponsorship transfer and would be absolved from obtaining an employer’s consent. In this case, the employer is responsible for meeting all of an employee’s dues. Once the employee’s sponsorship is transferred, neither the employee nor the new sponsor is obliged to financially compensate the former sponsor.

According to Al-Gosaibi’s directive, companies that do not comply with this course of action, can face a fine of any amount between SR500 and SR3,000. The fine is then multiplied based on the number of employees whose rights were violated.

In Abdulrahman’s case, so far none of these rules have been adhered to.

Over a period of almost two months prior to publication, Arab News sent faxes to 13 labor offices across the Kingdom asking for information regarding unpaid wages. Responses were only received from two of the 13 offices. Al-Gosaibi was also sent a copy of these questions — this was brought to the attention of the labor offices that were contacted.

In relation to labor violations in the Kingdom, the National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) released a report — the first of its kind — in May this year stating they have received complaints from expatriates about local Saudi companies that have mistreated them and cheated them out of their financial rights. The report stated that regulations and laws issued by the Labor Ministry and other officials were not put into effect. Hence, the urgent need for a comprehensive solution to put an end to such violations.

The NSHR also reported that there was a long delay in settlement of cases taken to the labor office due to a shortage of employees in the commissions for settlement of labor disputes. These commissions act as private courts to consider labor cases and settle them in accordance with the Labor Law.

Dr. Abdul Wajid ibn Khaled Al-Homaid, undersecretary for planning and development at the Ministry of Labor, said in a statement on the ministry’s website last month that 918 cases reached preliminary commissions (under the ministry) in the month of Jamad Al-Thani this year. While Saudis made 285 complaints (31.05 percent of total cases), the remaining 633 cases (68.95 percent) involved non-Saudis. There were 1,262 cases considered in the month of Jamad Al-Awwal 1428. In all 2,180 cases were received and considered in Jamad Al-Thani 1428. In the month of Jamad Al-Awwal, 1,721 cases were considered and received. So the increase of 459 cases (26.67 percent) compared to Jamad Al-Awwal.

Al-Homaid said in the statement that the number of disposed cases reached 583 (26.7 percent). Sixty-four cases were of terminations, 475 involved legal rights and 44 cases were of other categories. The amount involved in the cases of settled disputes reached SR6,712,827 in 75 cases, while the number of appealed cases reached 180. The amount involved in settlement disputes was higher by 28.46 percent with SR1,487,145 in Jamad Al-Thani compared to the previous month with SR5,225,682. The cases involved 26 nationalities: 33.4 percent Saudis; 15.3 percent Egyptians; 13.2 percent Bangladeshis; 11. 1 percent Indians; 6.9 percent Pakistanis, 5.7 percent Sudanese and the remaining 14.1 percent were of other nationalities.

Lawyer Ahmad Al-Amri said that all cases filed by expatriates could be categorized under employee rights and employer’s obligations, such as salaries, end of service dues... etc. Cases also involve random termination decisions and non-renewal of contracts. The success or failure of cases depends on documentation — whether the employee has a contract, or any other forms of communication that took place between the employer and the employee.

“I advise non-Saudi employees to have a written contract that documents the rights and obligations of both parties. Unfortunately, some expatriates accept employment at establishments without any contracts documenting their rights,” said Al-Amri.

“Additionally, at times they accept bad conditions like delayed wages and deprivation of organizational benefits. This encourages those with unethical inclinations to confiscate the rights of the employee. And this is applicable to both Saudis and non-Saudis with no differences between them,” he added.

Abdulrahman, however, has followed such advice. His paperwork and documents are all in line and yet his case is suspended because his former company has continuously failed to attend court hearings.

M.H., another Saudi lawyer, who preferred not to have his name published, said that such leniency regarding delayed and unpaid wages defies Islamic conduct. He was referring to a tradition narrated by Bukhari in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “Allah says, ‘There are three people whom I shall be their opponent on the Day of Judgment: and a man who hires a laborer, makes use of his service then does not give him his wages.’” Likewise, Ibn Majah reports another tradition in which the Prophet said: “Give the laborer his wages before his sweat dries.”

“Regulations and laws are pointless if they aren’t implemented,” said M.H.

However, according to the labor minister’s fax to Arab News, “there are no impediments preventing the implementation of the directive. It has been put into effect.” As to who is responsible for an employer’s violation of labor law, Al-Gosaibi wrote, “Those responsible for violating the Labor Law are those who violate the law. As for those who are responsible for following up and penalizing those who violate the law it is the Labor Ministry, the Labor Offices and the Commissions for Settlement of Labor Disputes.”

Responding as to why there was no blacklist of employers that have been proven to delay salaries and end of service awards, Al-Gosaibi wrote, “There is no blacklist, but each employer is penalized according to the type of violation committed either by banning foreign recruitment or suspending the computer and a fine between SR500 and SR3,000 in the cases of unpaid salaries. The fine then is multiplied based on the number of employees whose rights were violated. The penalty for not paying the end of service award is a fine between SR2,000 and SR5,000. The fine then is multiplied based on the number of employees whose rights were violated... Usually, employers are committed to giving employees their end of service awards if they deserve them.”

M.H., responding to the labor minister’s answers, said: “That’s what we’re good at, lip service: Issuing regulations and laws, and reciting them but what about applying them... What are these maltreated employees to do until there is any implementation?”

Abdulrahman’s uncle echoes his sentiments. “What is this young man supposed to do?” said Abdulrahman’s uncle. “Should he and his family go out on the streets and start begging? Or should he and his family starve to death?”