Labour And Immigration

Employees leaving their jobs in the UAE may be entitled to compensation for annual leave they have earned but not taken. Whether an employee resigns or is dismissed, the final settlement must account for legally accrued, unused annual leave, including entitlement accumulated during the final, incomplete year of service.

However, the amount payable is generally calculated on the basis of basic salary rather than the employee’s full salary package. The applicable rules also govern how much leave can be carried forward and when an employee may opt for cash compensation instead of taking time off.

Understanding these provisions can help employees determine their entitlements and ensure that unused leave is properly accounted for when their employment ends.

Annual Leave Entitlement Under UAE Labour Law

Article 29 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations sets out the annual leave entitlements of private-sector employees in the UAE.

Employees are entitled to 30 days of paid annual leave for every completed year of service. Those who have completed more than six months but less than one year of service are entitled to two days of leave for each month worked.

Where employment ends before an employee completes another year of service, the employee is entitled to annual leave calculated proportionately for the period worked, subject to the applicable legal provisions.

These entitlements form the basis for determining whether an employee has outstanding leave when their employment contract comes to an end.

Can Employees Claim Payment For Unused Leave After Resignation?

Yes. Employees are generally entitled to receive payment for accrued annual leave that remains unused when their employment ends, whether they resign or their employer terminates their employment.

The entitlement is not limited to leave accumulated during completed years of service. It also covers eligible leave accrued during the final, incomplete year, calculated in proportion to the period worked.

Article 19(2) of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, which implements the Labour Law, provides for the calculation of payment for unused annual leave on the basis of the employee’s basic salary.

Consequently, the final settlement should reflect the employee’s eligible outstanding leave balance and the applicable rate of payment. Employees should check their leave records, payslips and final settlement calculations to ensure that the amount due has been correctly assessed.

Rules On Carrying Forward Unused Annual Leave

Employees do not necessarily have to use their entire annual leave entitlement within the year in which it accrues. Article 19(1) of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022 allows employees to carry forward up to half of their annual leave entitlement to the following year.

Alternatively, an employee may agree with the employer to receive a cash payment in place of the leave, calculated according to the wage applicable when the leave becomes due, subject to the governing legal provisions.

The ability to carry forward leave or receive payment while continuing in employment is subject to the relevant rules and, where required, an agreement between the employee and employer.

The regulations also restrict employers from preventing employees from taking accrued annual leave for more than two consecutive years, unless the employee chooses to carry the leave forward or receive cash compensation in accordance with the applicable rules.

What Employees Should Check Before Their Final Settlement

Employees preparing to leave a job should verify the amount of annual leave accrued, the number of days already taken and any balance carried forward from previous years. They should also confirm how the employer has calculated the payment for unused leave and whether the calculation reflects the applicable basic salary.

Keeping copies of leave records and employment-related documents can help resolve discrepancies during the final settlement process.

UAE Labour Law provides a framework for protecting employees’ annual leave entitlements when employment ends. Knowing how leave accrues, when it may be carried forward and how unused days are compensated can help employees understand what they are entitled to receive when they resign or leave their jobs.

A switch of allegiances can lead to disagreement over the scope of a non-compete by either the employee or employer long after notice has been given. For employees subject to UAE federal employment law, which applies to private-sector jobs, such a restriction is permitted, but only within a clear legal framework. The wording of the contract and the employee's responsibilities and the reason for the exit from the company determine the outcome. Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations, in tandem with its Executive Regulations, sets the starting point for evaluating whether an onshore restriction can be enforced.

When a Non-Compete Can Be Enforced

Article 10 of the Employment Law permits a restriction where the employee's work gave them knowledge of the employer's clients or access to business secrets. It must specify the period, geographical area and type of work that are restricted, which extend only to the extent necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Article 12 of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022 gives further requirements. Including a clause in a signed contract therefore does not guarantee its enforceability: the employer has to demonstrate that it satisfies the legal conditions. A clause copied from a standard agreement can leave uncertainty as to which competitors, roles or locations are targeted.

Limits on Duration and Scope

The restriction cannot extend for more than two years from the expiry of the employment contract. That is a ceiling, not a period that is appropriate for all employees. A shorter restriction might be needed where pricing information or commercial plans quickly lose their value. Employers should be able to justify the choice of a period that is necessary for the role at hand. They should not assume that a clause extending beyond the statutory limit will simply be clipped by the court and enforced.

The territory and activities restricted should also be scrutinised with similar care. The restriction should not extend beyond a local business if the area is not justified. The law does not set a universal limit of one city or emirate, but determines whether the reach is necessary. Where the role is that of a software sales manager, a ban on all work in technology could include activities unrelated to the employer's commercial interests. Restricting specified sales activities in a relevant market provides a closer fit to the risk of the employer.

What the Employer Must Prove

The evidence should support the extent of what the employee's position actually involved. Client records, pricing information and tender documents might assist in demonstrating the scope of the restriction, with reference to access to information. General concern about moving to a rival does not establish such a link. A job title might reveal little about which accounts the employee managed or what commercial sensitive records they could consult. If a dispute goes to court, the burden of proving the alleged damage is on the employer according to Article 12. Evidence that an employee knew of sensitive information is only part of the case: the employer must substantiate the damage it has attributed to the alleged breach.

Onshore, enforcement usually focuses on compensation rather than an order stopping an employee from starting a new job. Separate confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions can address the concerns of misuse of information or approaches to clients. Those obligations should be considered on their own terms and legality, rather than assuming that they will always be enforceable independently of a non-compete. A restriction on competing employment needs to be distinguished from a labour ban, which deals with administrative restrictions on work permits.

When Employees May Be Released

The way in which the employment ended can determine whether a restriction applies. Article 10 revokes it where the employer terminates the contract in breach of the Employment Law. Article 12 also revokes it where termination is attributable to the employer's decision or breach of legal or contractual obligations. An employee is exempt where the contract ends during the probation, and the parties may agree in writing that the restriction will not take effect after termination. The termination letter and any subsequent agreement should therefore be considered alongside the contract.

The regulations allow a release through a payment by the employee or incoming employer, but the level is capped at three months' wages on the last contract that was agreed. This requires the former employer's written approval: a payment does not secure release. The three-month figure concerns this agreed exemption and should not be mistaken for a general limit on damages for a proven breach. There is also a deadline for enforcement. An employer is prevented from pursuing a grievance once a year has passed since it was alerted to the violation. Recording when the suspected breach came to light is therefore important when considering whether to proceed. Different rules apply in the Financial Free Zones.

The Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market have their own employment frameworks. Common-law principles guide the evaluation of restrictive covenants, and courts in both jurisdictions can grant injunctions where the relevant requirements are met. The federal two-year ceiling does not automatically apply within those separate employment regimes. Equally, a switch to a competitor in a free zone does not determine the law that applies to the former contract. The employment arrangements, applicable law and court with jurisdiction need to be considered.

Drafting Restrictions That Reflect the Risk

Employers should identify the information or client relationships that require protection, and draft around the obligations that the employee actually has. Exit discussions can delineate the disputed obligations before a new appointment takes place, including whether a narrower role would resolve the employer's concerns. Contract reviews need to take account of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which introduced the new Civil Transactions Law on 1 June 2026, which replaces the 1985 legislation. References to the old code need to be checked against the law that applies to the dispute. For both parties, a consideration of the specific restriction is more useful than treating every move to a rival as prohibited.

A man who broke into a sealed apartment and removed its contents during an active murder investigation has lost his final appeal against deportation before the UAE Federal Supreme Court.

The country’s highest court upheld the lower court’s conviction after concluding that the defendant knowingly altered a crime scene, tampered with potential evidence, and attempted to mislead law enforcement officials.

Court records revealed that the apartment had been jointly occupied by the defendant and another individual directly implicated in a murder case. Following the crime, public prosecutors ordered the property to be sealed and placed under strict judicial control to preserve all forensic evidence connected to the killing.

Despite clear legal restrictions, the defendant forcibly broke the lock, entered the secured premises, and cleared out furniture and other belongings, changing the physical condition of the crime scene. Prosecutors subsequently charged him with altering a crime scene and removing potential evidence to obstruct an ongoing police investigation.

A lower court initially convicted the man and ordered his immediate deportation from the UAE in lieu of a one-year prison sentence. That verdict was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal, prompting the defendant to take his case to the Federal Supreme Court.

In his final appeal, the defendant argued that he was a lawful tenant under a valid lease agreement and claimed he entered the apartment solely to retrieve his personal belongings after receiving permission from the landlord. He further denied having any knowledge that public prosecutors had formally barred entry to the property, while his defense lawyer argued that prosecution failed to establish criminal intent.

However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected these claims, citing CCTV surveillance footage, witness statements, and the defendant’s own admissions during initial questioning.

Crucially, investigative records showed that the defendant had previously contacted prosecutors to inquire why the apartment had been sealed. Judges ruled that this prior communication conclusively proved he was aware the property was tied to a murder probe and restricted by law.

The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had properly evaluated the evidence and that the defendant's deliberate decision to break into the sealed unit fully established all legal elements of the crime. Dismissing the appeal, the court declared the conviction and deportation order final.

A reduction in salary can have consequences beyond an employee’s immediate monthly income, potentially affecting the end-of-service gratuity payable when the employment relationship ends. In the UAE private sector, where gratuity is calculated by reference to an employee’s last basic wage, a lower salary recorded towards the end of service could substantially reduce the final settlement. The position becomes more complicated when an employer cuts an employee’s salary without a signed agreement or an amendment to the employment contract.

For example, an employee whose basic salary has been reduced by 20 per cent may find that the employer calculates gratuity using the reduced figure, even though the original offer letter and employment contract continue to show the higher amount. The central issue is not simply which salary appears in the latest payroll records, but whether the reduction was legally and contractually valid.

The UAE’s principal legislation governing private-sector employment is Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, as amended, together with its implementing regulations. The law establishes the framework for contractual wages, permissible deductions, employment conditions and end-of-service benefits. These provisions are particularly relevant when employers introduce salary reductions during periods of financial difficulty or business uncertainty.

When Can An Employer Reduce An Employee’s Salary?

An employee’s wage is a fundamental term of the employment relationship. Under UAE labour law, the employment contract records the agreed employment conditions, including the wage payable for the work performed. The basic wage is the amount specified in the employment contract, excluding allowances and other components that form part of the total wage.

A unilateral reduction in contractual pay raises questions about whether the employer has lawfully changed an agreed employment condition. A business downturn, cash-flow difficulties or disruption to commercial operations does not, by itself, give an employer an unrestricted right to reduce an employee’s contractual salary.

The distinction between a reduction agreed by both parties and one imposed by the employer is therefore important. A salary variation should be properly documented, with the relevant employment records updated where required. For employees whose contracts are registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE), the applicable procedures for amending the registered contract must also be followed.

A signed amendment or other clear evidence of the employee’s agreement may be relevant when determining whether a revised salary became contractually effective. The precise legal position will depend on the employment documents, the circumstances surrounding the reduction and the applicable requirements for changing the contract.

An employee should not assume that a lower figure appearing on a payslip automatically overrides the salary specified in the employment contract. Equally, the absence of a signed amendment does not necessarily resolve every dispute in the employee’s favour. The available evidence and the parties’ conduct may become important if the matter is contested.

Does Continuing To Work Mean Accepting A Pay Cut?

Employees who continue working after a salary reduction may face an additional difficulty. An employer could argue that the employee accepted the revised arrangement by continuing to perform their duties and receiving the reduced payments over a period of time.

Such circumstances may be relied upon as evidence of acceptance, but continuing to work should not automatically be treated as conclusive proof that every contractual change was lawfully agreed. The employee’s original contract, communications with the employer, payroll records and any objections raised at the time may all be relevant to establishing the parties’ intentions.

Employees who disagree with a reduction should communicate their position in writing as soon as reasonably possible. A written objection can help establish that accepting salary payments was not intended to amount to unconditional acceptance of a permanent contractual variation. Copies of emails, messages and any response from the employer should be retained.

It is also important to distinguish between accepting a payment and agreeing to a change in contractual terms. An employee may continue working because of financial commitments or the need to retain employment while disputing the legality of a reduction. Recording that disagreement contemporaneously can help prevent uncertainty later, particularly when the employee leaves the organisation and the final settlement is calculated.

How A Salary Reduction Can Affect End-Of-Service Gratuity

For eligible private-sector employees covered by the traditional end-of-service gratuity system, the calculation is based on the employee’s last basic wage, rather than the total salary inclusive of allowances. Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, an employee who completes at least one year of continuous service is generally entitled to gratuity, subject to the statutory conditions.

The standard calculation provides 21 days of basic wage for each of the first five years of service and 30 days of basic wage for each subsequent year. The total gratuity is capped at the equivalent of two years’ wage. Unpaid absence periods are excluded from the calculation of the period of service, as prescribed by law.

The distinction between basic wage and total wage is significant. An employee may receive housing, transport or other allowances in addition to basic pay, but these components are not ordinarily included in the basic-wage figure used to calculate gratuity. Consequently, the basic salary recorded in the employment contract can have a substantial bearing on the final amount payable.

Where an employee has agreed to a valid contractual amendment reducing the basic wage, the revised amount may be used to calculate gratuity when employment ends. If the employer has imposed a reduction without the employee’s agreement and the original contract remains unchanged, the employee may have grounds to challenge the use of the lower figure.

The issue is particularly important when the reduction is substantial or remains in place for several months before the employee resigns or is dismissed. A lower basic wage can reduce the gratuity payable for the employee’s entire qualifying service, rather than merely affecting the period following the reduction. Whether the original or revised wage should apply must, however, be assessed against the facts and the legally effective contractual terms.

What Employees Should Do Before Signing A Final Settlement

Employees who believe their gratuity has been calculated using an unlawfully reduced basic wage should examine the final settlement carefully before signing documents confirming that all employment dues have been paid.

A settlement acknowledgement or release may complicate a subsequent dispute, depending on its wording and the circumstances in which it was signed. Employees should avoid signing an unconditional declaration that all dues have been fully and finally settled if they genuinely dispute the calculation. If an acknowledgement of receipt is required, they can seek to record clearly that the payment has been received without accepting the disputed calculation, while recognising that the legal effect of any wording will depend on the circumstances.

Maintaining complete employment records is equally important. Employees should preserve the original offer letter and signed employment contract, any MOHRE-registered contract and amendments, payslips and Wage Protection System records before and after the reduction, and any correspondence announcing or explaining the change.

Written objections to the reduction, the employer’s responses, resignation or termination documents and the final settlement statement may also help establish the relevant facts. These records can assist in determining whether the original basic wage remained contractually applicable and whether the gratuity calculation should be revised.

How To Challenge An Incorrect Gratuity Calculation

An employee who cannot resolve the matter directly with the employer can approach MOHRE to raise an individual labour complaint, where the ministry has jurisdiction over the employment relationship. The employee should explain the disputed salary reduction, identify the contractual wage and provide the available documents supporting the claim.

MoHRE may seek an amicable settlement between the parties. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the matter may proceed through the applicable labour-dispute resolution process, including referral to the competent court where required. The procedure and available remedies depend on the nature and value of the claim and the rules in force.

Employees should also be aware that labour claims are subject to statutory time limits. Under the UAE Labour Law, claims relating to rights arising under the law are generally not heard after two years from the termination of the employment relationship, subject to the applicable statutory provisions and any relevant exceptions. Seeking advice or lodging a complaint promptly can help avoid difficulties associated with limitation periods.

The applicable route may differ for employees working in jurisdictions with separate employment legislation, including the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market, or for workers outside the ordinary federal private-sector framework.

Ultimately, a salary reduction does not automatically settle the question of which basic wage should be used to calculate gratuity. The decisive issues include whether the change was validly agreed, whether the relevant contractual and regulatory requirements were met, and what the employment records establish. Employees who challenge a reduction should document their objection, retain evidence of the original terms and examine the final settlement before accepting the employer’s calculation as conclusive.

A federal judge in Arizona has dismissed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing signs that the complaint may have been generated using artificial intelligence (AI), and has ordered the plaintiff to draft any amended complaint herself.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, US District Judge Krissa Lanham in Phoenix said an employment discrimination lawsuit filed against the department in September appeared to have been produced using AI, as it resembled other AI-generated complaints encountered by the court.

The 67-page complaint contained extensive factual allegations that were difficult to follow, repetitive and, in the judge’s view, largely unnecessary.

Lanham described the filing by plaintiff Shelly George as an improper “shotgun pleading”, in which factual allegations are poorly connected to unclear legal claims. George had accused the USDA of unlawful retaliation and creating a hostile work environment.

“George must personally draft the allegations she believes relevant to her claims and identify the claims she wishes to pursue,” Lanham wrote.

The judge did not prohibit the use of AI in all future filings in the case. However, she directed both sides to disclose when they used the technology and to confirm that any AI-generated material had been verified.

George, who is representing herself, told Reuters that she intended to amend her complaint and refile the lawsuit.

“I find no law that limits the number of pages one can use in a case filing. AI was partially used but if the language is valid, I’m not understanding the dismissal,” she said.

Lanham did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Agriculture Department also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling comes amid growing judicial scrutiny of the use of AI in legal proceedings. Lawyers and litigants can generally use the technology for legal research and drafting, provided they comply with applicable court rules and verify the accuracy of their submissions.

However, judges are increasingly encountering court documents containing apparent AI-generated errors, incoherent allegations and other deficiencies. Some have imposed sanctions or introduced restrictions, particularly in cases involving litigants representing themselves.

In a separate pending case in Florida, an appeals court is considering sanctions against a lawyer over what it described as AI-generated “slop” in court filings. A panel of judges said the submissions were excessively long, unfocused and, in some instances, amounted to “gibberish”.

When the Florida court directed the lawyer to respond to its concerns, it barred her from using AI to prepare that response. The lawyer has denied violating court rules.

Judicial approaches to AI-assisted legal work vary. Some courts require parties to disclose their use of the technology, while others have imposed outright restrictions on AI-generated material in court filings.

The Arizona ruling highlights the distinction between using AI as an aid to legal drafting and submitting documents that fail to present clear, relevant and properly structured claims. As courts establish their approach to the technology, litigants remain responsible for the accuracy, coherence and legal sufficiency of the documents they file.

An employee’s entitlement to compassionate leave following a family bereavement depends on the relationship with the deceased, the timing of the request and the provisions of the UAE Labour Law. Although employers may consider individual circumstances when dealing with leave applications, they are not legally required to grant every request for additional time off following a death in the family.

Under Article 32 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, as amended, employees in the UAE private sector are entitled to paid bereavement leave when certain specified family members die. The law prescribes the duration of this leave and the relatives whose deaths qualify for the entitlement. Where a request falls outside these provisions, an employer may refuse it unless a separate contractual arrangement or company policy provides a more favourable benefit.

The distinction is particularly relevant when an employee seeks leave following the death of a stepchild, whose relationship with the employee is not expressly covered by the statutory list of relatives eligible for bereavement leave.

Under Article 32, an employee is entitled to five days of paid bereavement leave in the event of the death of a spouse and three days in the event of the death of a mother, father, son, brother, sister, grandson, grandfather or grandmother. The leave must begin on the date of death.

Consequently, an employee whose stepson has died cannot automatically claim statutory bereavement leave on the same basis as an employee who has lost a son. A stepchild is not expressly included in the list of relatives specified in Article 32. Unless the employer’s policy, employment contract or another applicable provision offers a broader entitlement, the company may reject a request for paid bereavement leave in these circumstances.

The timing of the application is another important consideration. The statutory entitlement is intended to cover the immediate period following a bereavement, rather than provide an employee with an unrestricted right to take leave at a later date. Since Article 32 requires the leave to start on the date of death, an employee cannot ordinarily claim the statutory entitlement months after the event. The provision also does not allow an employee to claim five days of leave following the death of a son, as the prescribed period for the death of a son is three days.

Employees seeking bereavement leave must also provide appropriate documentation. Article 32 requires proof of the death issued by the relevant authorities. Employers may therefore ask for the necessary official documentation when assessing whether an employee qualifies for the statutory benefit.

In a case where an employee has already travelled to his home country on unpaid leave following the death of his stepson and subsequently requests an additional five days of compassionate leave, the employer may refuse the additional request under the statutory bereavement provisions. The employee has no automatic right to convert the unpaid absence into paid bereavement leave or extend it on the basis of a relationship that is not covered by the law.

However, the absence of a statutory entitlement does not prevent an employer from granting additional leave voluntarily. A company may consider the employee’s circumstances and approve further paid or unpaid leave under its internal policies, employment contract or discretionary arrangements. Such approval would be separate from the minimum entitlement provided by the Labour Law.

The position is different when it comes to unpaid leave. Under Article 33 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, an employee may take unpaid leave with the employer’s approval. The provision does not give employees an unrestricted right to absent themselves from work without pay; the employer’s consent is required, unless another applicable legal provision provides otherwise.

The law also establishes a specific consequence for an employee’s service record. Unpaid leave is excluded from the employee’s period of service with the employer and from the period of contributions to the retirement scheme, in accordance with the applicable legislation. Accordingly, an approved period of unpaid leave is not counted towards the employee’s length of service for the purposes covered by Article 33.

This distinction is important when calculating end-of-service benefits. Since the period of approved unpaid leave is excluded from the employee’s service term, it must be treated accordingly when determining the qualifying period of service for end-of-service benefits under the applicable rules. The precise calculation will depend on the employee’s circumstances and the legal provisions governing the particular benefit.

Employers and employees should therefore distinguish between statutory bereavement leave, additional compassionate leave granted at the employer’s discretion and approved unpaid leave. The first is governed by the eligibility conditions and durations prescribed by Article 32, while the second depends on the applicable employment arrangements and the employer’s decision. Unpaid leave, meanwhile, requires approval and carries consequences for the calculation of the employee’s service period.

For employees dealing with a family bereavement, understanding these distinctions can help avoid disputes over leave entitlement, attendance and end-of-service calculations. Employers should assess each request against the applicable law and their own policies, while ensuring that any additional benefits offered by the company are administered consistently.

People who incite or assist another person to die by suicide could face up to seven years in prison under amendments to the UAE’s Crimes and Penalties Law announced on October 8.

The new provisions introduce a tiered system of penalties, with punishments varying according to the consequences of the act, including whether the person survives, suffers serious injuries or dies by suicide.

If the person attempts suicide following incitement or assistance but survives without the consequences specified under the law, the offender may face detention and a fine, either separately or together.

The punishment increases to temporary imprisonment for between three and five years, along with a fine, if the attempt results in permanent disability, illness or an inability to carry out personal tasks for more than 20 days.

Where the incitement or assistance leads to the person’s death by suicide, the offender faces imprisonment for a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years.

The amendments also decriminalise attempted suicide, meaning people who attempt to take their own lives will no longer face criminal punishment for the attempt itself. The change is intended to encourage people experiencing psychological distress to seek assistance without fear of legal consequences.

Harsher Penalties For Vulnerable Victims

The amendments provide additional protection for people under the age of 18 and those whose “will or perception” is diminished.

Inciting or assisting suicide in such circumstances will be treated as an aggravating factor, attracting more severe legal consequences.

Where a person who attempts or dies by suicide lacks the capacity to exercise their will or perception, the offender will face the penalty prescribed for intentional murder or attempted intentional murder, depending on the outcome.

The government said the provisions are intended to reinforce legal safeguards for people who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation or harm.

Foreign Offenders Face Deportation

Under the amendments, foreign nationals convicted of inciting or assisting suicide must be deported from the UAE.

The law also gives courts the power to exempt an offender from punishment if they voluntarily intervene before the suicide is completed and successfully prevent the person’s death.

However, this exemption will not apply if the attempt results in permanent disability, illness or an inability to carry out personal tasks for more than 20 days.

According to the government, the provision is designed to encourage offenders to withdraw voluntarily from their actions and take steps to prevent the loss of life.

The amendments form part of the UAE’s broader efforts to modernise its criminal justice framework, strengthen protections for vulnerable members of society and balance deterrence with humanitarian considerations.

Three collective cases involving Dh12.3 million in claims were resolved through judicial deposits and amicable agreement.

An Abu Dhabi court has recovered Dh7,811,933 in unpaid labour dues for 948 workers within three months, helping safeguard their financial entitlements while supporting employment stability and business continuity.

The Abu Dhabi Labour Court secured the payments through judicial deposits and direct payments under amicable settlements in three collective cases, involving total claims of Dh12.3 million. The recovery was achieved through co-ordinated efforts by the court, the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) and the parties involved in enforcing the settlements.

Under the agreements, 457 workers received their full entitlements, while another 491 were paid part of the amounts due to them. The outstanding balances are to be recovered through regular instalments, allowing the collection process to continue.

The settlement process also enabled the workers to retain their jobs with the companies concerned. The approach is intended to preserve stable employment relationships, sustain economic activity and help businesses maintain their operations while meeting their financial obligations.

Resolving Labour Disputes in the UAE

The UAE resolved 98.6 per cent of labour disputes amicably during the first half of 2026, according to figures released by MoHRE.

The ministry's dispute resolution system settled 185,793 cases during the period, while 2,481 disputes, accounting for 1.4 per cent of the total, were referred to the judiciary for further proceedings.

One factor behind the high settlement rate is MoHRE's authority to adjudicate labour disputes directly when claims do not exceed Dh50,000. The measure has helped speed up the resolution of employment-related claims, ease the workload of local courts and enable workers and other claimants to obtain their legal entitlements more quickly.

UAE employees can challenge unlawful dismissal through MoHRE, with compensation potentially reaching three months’ last salary in cases covered by Article 47.

Employees in mainland UAE companies who lose their jobs may be able to challenge the termination if it breaches the protections provided under the UAE Labour Law. However, simply being dismissed without what an employee considers a satisfactory explanation does not, by itself, automatically make the termination an unlawful or arbitrary dismissal under the law.

The employment relationship of workers in the UAE private sector is principally governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, together with its implementing regulations and subsequent amendments. The law provides a framework for terminating employment contracts, while also protecting employees against dismissal in circumstances that are specifically recognised as unlawful.

One of the key provisions is Article 43, which allows either party to terminate an employment contract for a legitimate reason, provided the other party is given written notice. The notice period must generally be between 30 and 90 days, as agreed in the employment contract.

During the notice period, the employment contract remains in force and the worker is generally entitled to the agreed salary. Where the required notice is not observed, the party responsible for the breach may be required to pay compensation equivalent to the worker’s wage for the full notice period or the remaining part of it.

This means that an employer does not necessarily have to retain an employee until the original contractual end date simply because the employee has not committed misconduct. An employment contract may be terminated in accordance with the legal requirements, including the applicable notice provisions.

The position is different where the circumstances of the dismissal fall within Article 47 of the Labour Law.

When Dismissal Can Be Considered Unlawful

Article 47 deals specifically with what the law describes as unlawful termination of a worker’s service. It provides protection where an employee is dismissed because the employee has submitted a serious complaint to the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, or has filed a lawsuit against the employer and the validity of that complaint or lawsuit has been established.

The provision is important because it is aimed at preventing an employer from retaliating against an employee for legitimately exercising legal rights.

Therefore, an employee who is dismissed shortly after making a genuine labour complaint or pursuing a valid legal claim may have grounds to challenge the termination if there is evidence that the dismissal was connected to that action.

At the same time, the existence of a labour complaint or court case does not automatically mean that every subsequent dismissal is unlawful. The circumstances and evidence surrounding the termination remain important. The employee would need to establish that the dismissal falls within the circumstances covered by Article 47.

This distinction is particularly relevant because the expression “arbitrary dismissal” is sometimes used more broadly in everyday discussions about employment disputes. Under the current law, however, Article 47 provides a specific statutory test for unlawful termination.

What Compensation Can Be Awarded?

Where a competent court finds that a dismissal was unlawful under Article 47, the employer may be ordered to pay fair compensation to the employee.

The law does not prescribe an automatic fixed amount. Instead, the competent court determines the compensation after considering factors including the nature of the employee’s work, the extent of the harm suffered and the length of the employee’s service.

There is, however, a statutory ceiling. Compensation for unlawful dismissal under Article 47 cannot exceed the employee’s wage for three months, calculated on the basis of the last salary received.

The three-month limit is therefore a maximum rather than an automatic entitlement. An employee who succeeds in establishing unlawful dismissal cannot assume that the court will award three months’ salary in every case. The amount depends on the circumstances and the assessment of the competent authority or court.

Importantly, compensation for unlawful dismissal is not intended to replace other employment entitlements.

Article 47 expressly provides that the compensation does not prejudice the employee’s right to notice-period pay and end-of-service benefits payable under the Labour Law.

An employee may therefore have separate claims for unpaid salary, notice-period compensation, end-of-service gratuity and other amounts that became due when the employment relationship ended.

How Employees Can Raise A Labour Complaint

An employee who believes that an employer has violated the Labour Law can first approach the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation.

The ministry provides channels through which workers can register labour complaints without necessarily having to begin proceedings directly before a court. Once a complaint is submitted, the ministry examines the dispute and attempts to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties.

Employees should preserve documents that may be relevant to their claim. These can include the employment contract, termination letter, salary records, correspondence with the employer, records of complaints previously submitted, performance documents and any other material that may help establish the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

Maintaining a clear documentary record can be particularly important in disputes where the employee alleges that the stated reason for termination was different from the actual reason.

MOHRE's current complaint procedure provides for an initial attempt to resolve the dispute through communication between the parties. The ministry says a representative will contact the parties within the applicable process to examine the dispute and determine whether it can be settled.

The Labour Claims and Advisory Centre can also provide assistance to workers and employers dealing with employment disputes.

What Happens If The Dispute Is Not Settled?

The dispute-resolution system has been strengthened in recent years, giving MoHRE greater authority to determine certain employment disputes without requiring every case to proceed through the courts.

Under the current framework, MoHRE can issue a final decision in a labour dispute where the value of the claim does not exceed Dh50,000. The ministry may also issue a final decision where the parties fail to comply with an amicable settlement decision, regardless of the value of the claim.

A party dissatisfied with such a final decision may challenge it before the competent Court of Appeal within 15 working days of being notified of the decision. The ministry's decision is treated as an enforceable decision subject to the applicable procedures, although an appeal suspends its implementation until the court determines the matter.

Where the disputed claim exceeds Dh50,000 and an amicable settlement cannot be reached, MoHRE refers the dispute to the competent court. The referral is accompanied by a memorandum setting out the dispute, the arguments of the parties and the ministry's recommendations.

This means an employee does not ordinarily have to bypass MoHRE and immediately commence a court action in order to pursue a private-sector labour dispute.

What An Employee Should Check After Dismissal

An employee who receives a termination notice should first examine the reason given by the employer and the notice period provided.

If the employer has terminated the contract in accordance with Article 43 and the contractual notice requirements, the termination will not necessarily amount to unlawful dismissal simply because the employee disagrees with the decision.

The situation requires closer examination if the termination follows a serious labour complaint or a valid legal action against the employer. In such circumstances, the timing of the dismissal, the contents of correspondence and the history of the dispute may become relevant in determining whether Article 47 applies.

Employees should also check whether all financial entitlements have been settled. These may include salary up to the termination date, payment relating to the notice period where applicable, accrued leave entitlements, end-of-service benefits and any other contractual or statutory dues.

The employer is generally required to pay the worker’s wages and other end-of-service entitlements within 14 days from the end of the employment contract.

The Key Protection Under UAE Labour Law

The UAE Labour Law therefore draws an important distinction between a lawful termination of employment and a dismissal that is unlawful because it is linked to the employee exercising protected legal rights.

An employee cannot necessarily claim arbitrary-dismissal compensation simply because the employer ended the employment relationship or because the employee considers the reason unfair. The circumstances surrounding the termination must fall within the protection provided by Article 47.

Where that protection applies and unlawful dismissal is established, the employee may seek fair compensation of up to three months’ last salary, while retaining the right to claim other statutory employment dues such as notice-period compensation and end-of-service benefits.

For employees facing such a dispute, the practical route is to document the circumstances, approach MoHRE and allow the statutory dispute-resolution process to take its course. Where a settlement cannot be reached, the applicable claim value and circumstances will determine whether MoHRE can issue a final decision or whether the dispute proceeds to the competent court.

The US Department of Homeland Security has proposed a dramatic restructuring of the financial conditions attached to Optional Practical Training, potentially making a longstanding work authorisation pathway for international students substantially more expensive for universities and employers.

Under the proposed rule, an educational institution certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program would pay $70,000 when it first recommends an F-1 student for Optional Practical Training, followed by $30,000 for a subsequent OPT recommendation. The second charge would apply to later participation in the programme, including the 24-month extension available to eligible graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

The proposal, issued by DHS through US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is not yet law. It remains subject to public comment and further agency action. But its legal significance extends well beyond the immediate financial burden.

At its core, the proposal raises a question over how far the executive branch can go in using regulatory conditions and fees to control access to an immigration programme that Congress has not expressly abolished.

DHS Relies On Broad Immigration Authority

DHS bases the proposal principally on its general authority to administer and enforce immigration laws and, in particular, Section 214(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the Secretary authority to prescribe the time and conditions of admission of nonimmigrants.

The agency argues that practical training is part of the conditions attached to F-1 status and that it therefore has authority to establish requirements governing participation in OPT.

That argument has substantial precedent behind it. In Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld DHS's authority to permit qualifying F-1 students to undertake practical training after completing their studies. The court concluded that DHS's power to regulate the “time” and “conditions” of nonimmigrant admission could encompass employment reasonably related to the F-1 visa category.

That ruling gives DHS a significant legal foundation for regulating OPT. But it does not necessarily answer the more difficult question presented by the new proposal.

The issue now is not simply whether DHS can regulate OPT. It is whether the agency can impose a six-figure financial barrier as a condition of participating in it. That distinction could become central to any litigation.

Is The Charge Really A Fee?

One of the most significant legal questions concerns the character and purpose of the proposed payment.

DHS describes the amounts as fees intended to strengthen programme integrity, deter fraud and encourage schools to scrutinise OPT recommendations more closely. The agency also argues that the charges are reasonably related to the statutory purposes of the F-1 classification.

But the proposal contains an unusual feature. DHS acknowledges that the money collected would be deposited into the US Treasury as miscellaneous receipts rather than retained by ICE for administering or enforcing the OPT programme.

The distinction between a regulatory fee and a charge that operates principally as a policy instrument could become important in litigation.

The proposed payments are not calculated simply by reference to the government's direct cost of processing an OPT recommendation. DHS instead places substantial emphasis on deterrence, programme integrity and the relationship between OPT and the H-1B system.

The agency's economic analysis also projects billions of dollars in annual transfers to the federal government if the proposal takes effect. That does not by itself establish that the charges are unlawful. But it could prompt questions about their statutory character and whether DHS has adequately explained why Congress authorised such a substantial financial condition for participation in OPT.

DHS is effectively arguing that the financial burden is justified because it changes behaviour. Schools would have a stronger incentive to scrutinise recommendations, questionable arrangements would become less attractive and employers could have less incentive to use OPT as an alternative to other employment-based immigration routes.

A court could therefore be asked to consider whether DHS has adequately connected the size and purpose of the charge to the authority Congress delegated to the agency.

The $70,000 Charge Could Face Close Legal Scrutiny

The proposed initial charge could face particularly close legal scrutiny because DHS does not calculate it simply by reference to the cost of processing an OPT recommendation.

Instead, the agency says it selected an amount comparable to certain H-1B charges partly to discourage employers and students from using OPT to avoid H-1B programme fees and restrictions. That rationale is significant.

DHS is not merely regulating how OPT operates. It is seeking to influence the relative attractiveness of two separate immigration programmes by making participation in one substantially more expensive.

That could invite an argument that the agency is using its authority over F-1 students to pursue a policy objective associated with the H-1B programme.

Congress has created separate statutory frameworks for F-1 students and H-1B specialty occupation workers. A legal challenge could therefore question whether DHS may use its regulatory authority over one classification to impose a financial deterrent designed, at least in part, to discourage reliance on that classification as a route towards longer-term employment.

The agency is likely to respond that OPT is not a statutory entitlement and that Congress has left substantial room for DHS to establish the conditions under which F-1 students may remain in the US and undertake practical training.

That argument is supported by the long history of executive regulation of practical training. But the unprecedented scale of the proposed fee creates a factual and legal distinction that earlier OPT litigation did not resolve.

The Proposal Could Be Challenged Under Administrative Law

If the rule is finalised, litigation would likely centre on the Administrative Procedure Act.

A challenger could argue that DHS has exceeded its statutory authority, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or failed adequately to explain the connection between the proposed charges and the objectives it claims to pursue.

The agency has attempted to anticipate some of these arguments. Its proposal contains an extensive explanation of why it believes the fee is reasonably related to F-1 status. DHS points to alleged fraud, problematic worksites, “pay-to-stay” arrangements and concerns that OPT can be used to bypass H-1B restrictions.

The agency also says the financial burden would encourage schools to conduct more rigorous reviews before making OPT recommendations.

But the scale of the charge could make the adequacy of that reasoning a critical issue. DHS's own analysis acknowledges that the proposal could produce major reductions in OPT participation. It estimates annualised costs of the rule at between $32 million and $8.2 billion, with a primary estimate of about $4.1 billion. The agency also projects annual transfers from educational institutions to the federal government of between about $8.7 billion and $16.9 billion.

Those figures demonstrate that the economic consequences are not incidental. The financial burden is central to how the proposal would operate.

That could strengthen a challenge arguing that DHS has not adequately explained why such a substantial charge is necessary or authorised under the statutory framework governing F-1 students.

The Major-Questions Doctrine Could Enter The Dispute

The proposed rule could also bring the major-questions doctrine into the litigation. The doctrine places limits on an agency's ability to claim broad regulatory powers over matters of major economic or political significance without clear congressional authorisation. Its relevance here would depend heavily on how a court characterises the proposed charges and their effect on the OPT programme.

DHS would be likely to argue that immigration is an area in which Congress has delegated substantial authority to the executive branch and that regulating the conditions of F-1 status falls squarely within that delegation.

A challenger, however, could contend that using that authority to impose a charge of this magnitude would go beyond ordinary administration of the programme, particularly if the practical effect is to substantially reduce access to OPT.

The proposed rule would not formally eliminate OPT. But the scale of the charges could make participation considerably more difficult for universities, students and employers.

That distinction could prove important. A court would have to determine whether DHS is regulating an existing immigration programme within authority already delegated by Congress or effectively redesigning access to that programme through a financial condition for which Congress has not provided sufficiently clear authorisation.

Schools Become Immigration Gatekeepers And Financial Risk-Bearers

The proposal would also change the relationship between universities and their international students.

At present, the designated school official plays an important compliance role in the OPT process. Under the proposal, that role would acquire a direct financial dimension.

A school would have to pay the applicable fee before its designated official could enter the OPT recommendation into the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. USCIS would not be permitted to grant employment authorisation if the required payment had not been made.

This would make the university a financial gatekeeper to federal employment authorisation. The financial exposure could be particularly significant for smaller institutions. DHS itself estimates that the rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and identifies more than 1,300 private non-profit institutions as small entities for purposes of its regulatory analysis.

The agency also acknowledges that schools could pass the cost to students, other students or employers. That creates another potential source of controversy because the party legally required to make the payment may not ultimately bear its economic cost.

The arrangement could also create difficult institutional decisions. Universities may have to determine whether an individual student's proposed OPT participation justifies a charge that could be many times higher than the cost of the student's education or administrative processing.

Reliance Interests May Also Matter

DHS has attempted to address reliance concerns by making the proposal prospective. The proposed fee would apply to OPT recommendations made after the final rule becomes effective, rather than retroactively imposing charges on students who have already received OPT authorisation.

That prospective approach could strengthen DHS's position, but it would not necessarily end the reliance issue.

International students and educational institutions have for years made educational, employment and recruitment decisions around the availability of OPT. STEM graduates, in particular, have been able to rely on the additional 24-month extension when planning their transition from higher education to employment.

The agency nevertheless concludes that the interests of students, employers and educational institutions in the existing system are outweighed by programme-integrity and worker-protection concerns.

A court reviewing the final rule could examine whether DHS adequately considered the consequences of disrupting established reliance interests and whether its explanation reasonably addressed those consequences.

The question would not simply be whether the government is permitted to change policy. Agencies generally can change regulatory policy. The more important issue would be whether DHS followed the required administrative process and adequately explained why the new policy is justified.

The Rule Could Reshape The H-1B Pipeline

The proposal is also significant because OPT has become closely connected to the H-1B system. For many international graduates, OPT provides the period during which they obtain practical experience while seeking longer-term sponsorship. STEM graduates can obtain an additional 24 months of work authorisation, giving them a substantially longer period to compete for H-1B sponsorship.

DHS expressly identifies this relationship in its proposal. The agency says the fee is partly intended to prevent OPT from being used to circumvent H-1B fees, caps and prevailing-wage requirements.

That could have consequences beyond student immigration. If the proposed charges substantially reduce OPT participation, employers could face a smaller pool of international graduates available for professional positions. Students may instead seek opportunities in other countries, while universities could face pressure to reconsider the value and cost of international enrolment.

The proposal could therefore alter the economic relationship between the US higher education system and its international talent pipeline even though its immediate legal target is a temporary work authorisation programme.

A Fee That Could Become A Test Of Agency Power

The proposed OPT charges represent more than another increase in immigration costs. They test an important boundary in administrative law: how much policy-making power Congress has delegated to an executive agency when the agency regulates an existing immigration programme.

DHS has a significant legal foundation because courts have recognised its authority to regulate the conditions of F-1 status and to establish OPT through regulation. But the new proposal goes further by attaching a potentially prohibitive financial condition to participation.

That makes the final rule's reasoning as important as the fee itself. If DHS can demonstrate a sufficiently close relationship between the amount charged, programme integrity and its statutory responsibilities, the agency will have a stronger defence. If a court instead concludes that DHS has not adequately established the statutory basis for a charge of this magnitude, or that the agency failed to reasonably explain the rule's economic and policy consequences, the proposal could face a serious legal challenge.

The legal dispute, if the proposal becomes final, may therefore turn on a relatively narrow but consequential question: Congress has given DHS broad authority to regulate the conditions of F-1 status, but how far does that delegation extend when the agency attaches a financial condition capable of fundamentally changing access to practical training?

The answer could determine more than the fate of the proposed OPT charges. It could help define the boundary between administering an immigration programme and using delegated regulatory authority to substantially reshape it.