Qatari unfair dismissal ruling puts spotlight on employers’ HR policies

The Appellate Division of the QFC’s Civil and Commercial Court found that an employer had breached its own human resources (HR) policy when it dismissed an employee in 2021. However, the court also found that the company had grounds to dismiss the employee for gross misconduct, and held that its HR policy was compliant with the QFC Employment Regulations.

Employment law expert Luke Tapp of Pinsent Masons said the case was an important reminder to all employers that are based in the QFC. “While being compliant with the QFC Employment Regulations at all times is obviously important, the QFC courts will also give equal weighting to an employer’s internal policies,” he added.

“Therefore, employers need to ensure that they also follow their own policies at all times. Failure to do so – even if they have complied with the QFC Employment Regulations – may create liability for the company as the court is willing to enforce these internal policies. This applies to employee dismissals, but will also apply to broader employee issues – such as sickness absence and maternity leave,” he said.

The court heard that the female employee joined the company in 2008 but that her employment was transferred to its QFC entity in 2012. She lodged various grievances culminating in a claim of unfair treatment, discrimination and bullying in 2021. An HR manager suggested she leave her employment in October 2021, followed by an exit package offer.

The employee stopped going to work without explanation in October 2021 and received warnings of potential disciplinary action. The company terminated her employment in December 2021, citing ‘absence from work without a legitimate cause for more than seven consecutive days’. Managers refused payment for her three-month notice period.

When she filed a claim against her former employer, a lower court dismissed allegations of unlawful discrimination but upheld her claim for unfair dismissal. It said the company had breached its contract with her by not holding the disciplinary hearings required under her employment agreement and under the QFC Employment Regulations.

The court held that if the company had followed its own procedures, the worker would have been given three-months’ notice, and awarded her QAR 15,000 (approx. US$4,100) due to the company’s “failures to give proper consideration to” her grievances “relating to discrimination and its failure to comply with the employment agreement”.

The Appellate Division found that the employer had grounds for dismissal for gross misconduct due to the worker’s absence without legitimate cause, but said it had failed to follow the contractual procedure set out in its own HR policy.

Michael Chattle of Pinsent Masons said it is important for employers to have well-written and commercial policies in place, including a disciplinary policy. “These should strike the right balance between compliance with the employment law and protecting the employees, however be flexible and practical enough not to overly limit the employer’s actions and cause impractical bureaucracy and delays.”

He added: “With a disciplinary policy, for example, there should be sufficient well-written provisions that permit employers to be able to disapply or deviate from the standard procedure where necessary.”

The Appellate Division held that the lower court had been wrong to conclude that the company should have given the employee three-month notice. Instead, it said, the company could have dismissed her without notice even if it had followed the proper termination procedures. It reversed the QAR 15,000 payment for moral damages, stating that the employee’s conduct was not “such that it should have been marked by” a financial award.

Tapp said: “In this case, the disciplinary policy was deemed to form part of the employee’s contract. While not of central importance to this case, it is a timely reminder that employers should ensure that their internal policies are clearly marked as non-contractual wherever possible.”