First labor committee formed by BAE staff

Author: 
By Saeed Haider & Khaled Al-Awadh
Publication Date: 
Mon, 2002-07-22 03:00

RIYADH, 22 July — Saudi employees of British Aerospace ( BAE ) have set up the first labor committee of the Kingdom.

"We have notified the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs of the names of the members of the new committee," said Abdullah Al-Samhaan, head of the Labor Committee for Saudi Employees Working in BAE Systems.

The Kingdom’s new labor regulations stipulate that a company’s owner does not have the authority to block the setting up of a labor committee and workers do not require his permission to form such a committee.

Al-Samhaan pointed out that the new nine-member committee comes in accordance with new regulations approved by the Council of Ministers to set up labor committees at companies employing 100 or more Saudis.

" We are looking for means to establish a dialogue with the company in order to improve the work atmosphere and overcome some contract obstacles recently created by the company," he added. The elected labor committee comprises three members each from the central and eastern regions and one each from the western, northern and southern regions.

Meanwhile after the first hearing yesterday in the case against the termination of a Saudi employee of BAE, the Labor Court adjourned the case until July 31 and directed the defense lawyer to produce more reasons for the sack.

Surprisingly, the previous lawyer, Khaled Al-Gosadi, did not appear in court and instead a new lawyer, Fahd Abdulaziz Al-Sulaiman represented BAE. Why the defense lawyer was changed is not known but Yahya Al-Faifi, the sacked Saudi employee felt that the previous lawyer was more sympathetic to his cause.

Al-Faifi was urgently recalled by BAE on June 18 and was asked to sign a notification of termination without cause.

British Aerospace is at the center of a controversy for some time. BAE’s problems started when it asked its Saudi workers to sign a document which would allow the company "to make changes" in the employment agreements of its Saudi contract manning staff (CMS). A case has already been filed in Dammam Labor Court by 497 Saudi employees, as well as by the Saudi staff of BAE in Riyadh, Jeddah, Taif, Tabuk and Khamis Al-Mushayt. However, many of the BAE Saudi workers have signed the "Application to continue employment with the Al Yamamah Project".

According to Al-Faifi, there is no apparent reason for his termination. However, in the Labor Court, the BAE lawyer listed certain reasons for his termination. Al-Sulaiman told the court that the BAE was carrying out the order of the Al-Yamamah Project officer, and therefore, could not be appealed. Secondly, he said that the contract between Al-Faifi and BAE was essentially an unspecified one and, therefore, the organization had the right to terminate him. Al-Faifi, who is representing his own case in the court, contested the grounds for his termination and told Arab News that Article 72 of the Saudi Labor Law nullified termination on grounds of unspecified contract .

He said BAE wanted to completely re-write the employment contract and that was not acceptable to him as well as scores of other Saudi employees. "Basically, I was being asked to sign away my rights under my old employment contract without having any idea what I might be offered in any new contract. If I didn’t sign I was threatened with termination.

This was absolutely unacceptable and completely against Article 22 and Article 6 of the Labor and Workmen’s Law, which is in force in the Kingdom.," he told Arab News. Al-Faifi also cast doubt over the manner in which the document was presented to the Saudi staff. "Initially, no one took that document seriously as it was given to the staff along with many other booklets which were basically promotional literature," he said.

"It was much later that the management started insisting that we sign that document." Al-Faifi maintained that the job contract very specifically said that all employees would be covered by Saudi Labor Law and, therefore, any other regulation or addition or deletion in the contract was irrelevant.

Main category: 
Old Categories: