Novel way of misusing labor law

Author: 
SIRAJ WAHAB | ARAB NEWS
Publication Date: 
Tue, 2010-12-28 00:58

The difference may, to the untrained eye, seem
inconsequential. However, according to the new Saudi law, an exit/re-entry visa
instead of the required final exit visa will block an expatriate worker from
returning to the Kingdom on a new employment visa.
Under the revised law, the no-objection certificate
previously required of companies for departing employees was eliminated, if
they had a proper final exit visa on their passports. By cleverly substituting
an exit/re-entry visa for the final exit, companies make it appear as if the
employee has not left in good standing. This can preclude the worker from
returning to the Kingdom for years in some cases. The final exit visa on one’s
passport is seen by Saudi missions abroad as proof that the person has left the
company with a clean slate.
Some hapless employees only discover this as their passports
are often delivered to them at the airport as they depart; some might not even
notice the misuse until reaching their home countries.
The reason this deceit has come to light is because a
33-year-old Indian pipe technician who had been with the same company for 13
years discovered the wrong visa at the airport’s immigration counter and went
back to his former employers to correct the “mistake” and then return to India
with his wife and two children. It was only after speaking to his employer that
he learned this was not a mistake but an underhanded way to keep him from
coming back to the Kingdom for future employment.
“I never had any complaints against the company,” said the
disgruntled pipe technician who has been stranded since October in Jubail with
his family, unable to work and unable to leave. “When I discovered that my
company had not given me the mandatory final exit and had only stamped an
exit/re-entry visa, I thought it must have been an error on our
administration’s part, so me and my wife and two children came back from the
airport. Now, we don't have a home to stay in because we had cleared
everything; after all we were going for good after settling all our accounts.
We stayed at a friend’s place, and on Oct. 9, the day after we were supposed to
travel home, I went to our office and explained the error. One manager sent me
to another, and soon I realized it was not an error but a deliberate act of
harassment.”
One of the company managers told him they did not want him
to come back to the Kingdom, and that was why they substituted the final exit
visa with an exit/re-entry stamp.
“I protested. I told them it is my right to have a final
exit on my passport,” said the pipe technician. 'If you have any case against
me then tell me. I would like to clear it,’ I told them. Of course there was no
case. They cleared my end of service benefits. Everything was settled amicably.
There was no acrimony. They would not listen to me and instead asked me to sign
a paper that said I would not come back to the Kingdom for one year. They said
I would get a final exit only after I signed that paper. I refused.”
An official at the Labor Office in Jubail ruled in the
employee’s favor and directed the company to get the proper visa. The company
appealed to the higher authorities, which again ruled in the technician’s favor
and directed the company to cancel all previous visas, stamp the final exit,
and issue new air tickets for him and his family, so they would be able to
travel within a week. The company refused, prompting the higher court to issue
an order to the police to settle the matter. The company told the police that
they have approached another office and that is where the matter is currently
standing.
For the technician and his family, every day presents new challenges.
He has no legal documentation; he cannot travel anywhere else. His children
cannot go to school, and he cannot send them back because he cannot get the
final exit visa from the Passport Office because he does not have an iqama.
He said he would like to return to the Kingdom and continue
working in his trade — but probably for a more reputable company. “What's wrong
with that? If I have a good offer, then I will surely take it,” the stranded
technician said. “This is legal.”
However, legal experts say a company can always approach the
labor court to send its previous employee back, claiming that the person
learned company secrets during the time of his employment.

old inpro: 
Taxonomy upgrade extras: