I hope you have time to read this.
My EMPLOYER hired me through an agency for a ONE YEAR CONTRACT. For the previous 6 years I worked directly for the EMPLOYER. I was mostly out of the UAE visiting manufacturers in Europe.
I discovered when payments were due, the EMPLOYER refused to pay the AGENCY for Annual Leave, Holiday Pay, End of Service Gratuity and Flights back home the latter as also mentioned in contract. The HR asked me to sort this out with the AGENCY but the AGENCY advised payments were not being paid to it
I referred the HR department that under Article 1 (definitions) and Article 18 Para 2 of UAE Labour Law which further states that EMPLOYEES
“THE PERSONS SUPPLIED BY A RECRUITMENT AGENT OR A LABOUR SUPPLIER SHALL, IMMEDIATELY UPON JOINING THE SERVICE OF AN EMPLOYER, BE CONSIDERED EMPLOYEES OF THAT EMPLOYER AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO ALL THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SUCH EMPLOYEES AND THE EMPLOYER SHALL BE DIRECT AND WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM THE LABOUR AGENT WHOSE TASK AND RELATION WITH THEM SHALL CEASE TO EXIST AS SOON AS THEY ARE INTRODUCED TO AND EMPLOYED BY THE
Since that time HR has remained silent. Since this is limited to one individual this is a clear case of deception (which fits the CIVIL CODE)
The OFFER LETTER from the AGENCY stated the latest contract contains the terms of the old contracts, my understanding is the EMPLOYER is bound by terms of the contract filed with the MOL. NB No elements of contract were stated so this clearly implies that the provisions of the previous contract apply (such as family tickets).
My points are to close my claim to the EMPLOYER when I meet
1. The EMPLOYER once stated he had never seen the contract, but in my view he had a duty to inform himself of the terms therein. I believe common sense dictates this. Is this correct?
2. My understanding that the only valid CONTRACT is the one signed by the EMPLOYEE and filed with the MOL. It contains nearly all the points except FAMILY TICKETS (which I rely o ARTICLE 135 of CIVIL Law amongst other points there were refusals to include omitted points. **Is this correct?**
3. The AGENCY paid in part (losing all his commission) just to get his GUARANTEE PAYMMENT from the MINISTRY OF LABOUR, though I did not press this point. However this is not a legally enforceable settlement if there are still outstanding payments from the EMPLOYER who is the one I should contact and not the EMPLOYER. Is this correct?
The contract was conducted by the HR in BAD FAITH
EMPLOYER is only interchangeable with HR for the purpose of this email
Because I have a good relationship with my management I am going to attempt to conclude this matter amicably by meeting face to face.