UAE: New rules set to ensure fairness in disciplinary penalties for workers

The Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) has announced a set of new rules, controls and standards aimed at ensuring greater balance in the labour market when it comes to disciplinary measures and penalties imposed on workers. The new framework seeks to safeguard the rights and interests of workers, employers and business owners alike.

In a statement published on its official website, the ministry stressed that a stable working environment is not built on the absence of accountability, nor is it achieved through imposing excessive penalties. Rather, it is established when both parties to the employment relationship – workers and employers – understand their respective rights and obligations and have confidence that decisions affecting their employment relationship are based on clear rules and applied fairly.

The ministry emphasised that the strength of a disciplinary decision does not lie in the severity of the penalty imposed, but rather in the soundness of the grounds on which it is based. While discipline is achieved through the exercise of authority, its sustainability depends on the fairness with which that authority is exercised.

The ministry explained that, although taking a decision to impose a disciplinary penalty on a worker may appear straightforward, ensuring its fairness requires more than simply establishing that a violation has occurred. It is not enough to ask whether the worker committed an offence, how it affected workflow, and whether the penalty imposed was warranted.

The (MoHRE) said: “A worker may be late for work for the first time, while another may repeatedly arrive late despite having been warned. Similarly, one worker may commit an error with limited consequences, while another, through negligence, may put the safety of colleagues or the interests of the establishment at risk. Although the violations may be established in both cases, the differing circumstances and consequences mean that treating them equally in terms of penalties would be closer to overlooking justice than achieving it.”

The ministry added: “This highlights the importance of distinguishing between establishing that a violation has occurred and determining whether the penalty is lawful and justified. The former concerns the incident itself and the evidence supporting it, while the latter relates to the soundness of the procedures followed and whether the penalty is proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.”

The ministry explained that the UAE legislator recognised the importance of maintaining this balance. Accordingly, the employer’s authority to impose disciplinary penalties is neither left unrestricted nor stripped of the necessary means to safeguard workplace discipline.

Article 39 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, as amended, specifies the disciplinary penalties that may be imposed on workers, ranging from written notices and written warnings to dismissal from service, while preserving the worker’s entitlement to end-of-service benefits in accordance with the conditions prescribed by law.

The ministry noted that the legislative framework goes beyond specifying the types of penalties to regulate the procedures for taking disciplinary decisions themselves.

Article 24 of the Executive Regulations, issued under Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, requires employers to take into account the seriousness and severity of the violation and its consequences. It also requires that workers be notified in writing of the allegations against them, given the opportunity to present their statements and have their defence examined, with the proceedings documented in an official record before any penalty is imposed. Workers must also be informed of the reasons for the disciplinary action taken against them.

The ministry stressed that these safeguards are not merely formal procedures preceding the issuance of a disciplinary decision. Rather, they reflect an important legal principle: an employer’s authority to take disciplinary action derives its legitimacy not simply from the right to organise and manage work, but from exercising that authority within the limits established by law.

It explained that listening to a worker does not mean showing leniency towards misconduct, just as examining the circumstances surrounding a violation does not undermine the employer’s authority. An investigation may uncover facts that were not initially apparent or establish that the conduct was more serious than first believed. In either case, a decision based on a proper investigation is more likely to achieve its intended purpose.

The ministry also emphasised that establishing discipline within an organisation does not begin when a violation occurs. It starts much earlier, through clear workplace instructions, ensuring workers understand their obligations, and establishing transparent rules governing professional conduct.

The clearer and better understood these rules are, the less likely violations are to occur, and the fairer and more objective the accountability process becomes when breaches do take place.

MoHRE explained that fairness in imposing disciplinary penalties is not limited to considering the worker who committed the violation. It also extends to protecting other employees and safeguarding the interests of the establishment itself.

Showing leniency towards serious violations may undermine workplace safety and weaken discipline, while imposing disproportionately severe penalties for minor mistakes may erode workers’ confidence in the fairness of decisions taken against them.

The ministry said: “Proportionality does not mean reducing penalties in all circumstances. Rather, it means selecting the penalty justified by the facts of each case. Article 41 of the same Federal Decree-Law reinforces this approach by prohibiting the imposition of more than one disciplinary penalty for a single violation, reflecting the importance of establishing clear limits on disciplinary action.”

The ministry concluded: “In practical terms, an establishment’s efficiency is not measured by the number of penalties it imposes on its employees, but by its ability to maintain discipline and reduce the recurrence of violations. A reasoned warning may be sufficient to correct behaviour, while other violations may require firmer action to protect the interests of the establishment and its employees.”