Employee Overtime Pay Entitlement Case
Successfully securing overtime compensation for an employee through appellate proceedings, establishing that employer’s implicit consent suffices for overtime entitlement.
- Labor Law
- Overtime Rights
- Appellate Victory
Case Overview
Challenge
First instance court rejected overtime claim despite 140+ documented hours
Strategy
Appeal emphasizing implicit authorization through employer's knowledge and silence
Outcome
Appellate court overturned decision, ordered full overtime payment
The Initial Dispute
In a recent labor dispute, an employee sought her labor entitlements, including payment for overtime hours she had worked during her employment. The court appointed a technical expert to review the attendance and time records, which showed that the employee had performed more than one hundred and forty hours of overtime work without any objection from the employer, despite remaining at the workplace beyond official hours.
First Instance Decision
Despite clear evidence of overtime work, the court of first instance rejected the employee's claim, reasoning that there was no explicit instruction from the employer to perform overtime work. However, this reasoning was not in line with the law, as the entitlement to overtime pay does not require a written or explicit order from the employer.
It is sufficient that the employee actually worked the extra hours with the employer's knowledge and without objection. The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has consistently ruled that when an employer allows an employee to remain at the workplace beyond official hours to complete their duties, this constitutes implicit authorization for overtime, entitling the employee to the corresponding pay.
The Appeal Strategy
At the appeal stage, the employee maintained this argument and supported it with official time records, emphasizing that her continuous work without objection amounted to the employer's implicit consent. The appeal focused on a well-established legal principle that an employer's silence and acceptance of an employee's overtime work constitutes implicit authorization.
The defense strategy centered on demonstrating that the employer's knowledge of the overtime work, combined with the absence of any objection, satisfied the legal requirements for overtime compensation under UAE labor law.
Appellate Court Ruling
After reviewing the expert report and its detailed findings, the court was satisfied that the employee was indeed entitled to her overtime pay. Accordingly, it overturned the earlier judgment and ordered the employer to pay the due amount.
The ruling reaffirmed a well-established legal principle: An employer's silence and acceptance of an employee's overtime work constitutes implicit authorization, thereby entitling the employee to the statutory overtime pay. This decision reinforces employee rights and clarifies the standards for overtime compensation claims in the UAE.
Case Timeline
Legal Significance
This case establishes an important precedent regarding overtime compensation in UAE labor law. It clarifies that employees do not need explicit written authorization to be entitled to overtime pay, as long as they worked extra hours with the employer's knowledge and without objection.
The ruling protects employee rights by recognizing that implicit consent—demonstrated through the employer's awareness and silence—is sufficient grounds for overtime entitlement. This decision serves as a reminder to employers of their obligations under labor law and reinforces the judiciary's commitment to fair labor practices.
