Thousands of employees are stuck outside the UAE. Flights are cancelled or rerouted. Offices are open, but part of the workforce is absent physically and functionally. Employers are now facing questions that, until recently, existed only in theory: Do we keep paying? Is this absence treated as unauthorised leave? Does force majeure apply to an employment contract?
And if it does — what does that actually allow?
The answers exist. They sit in the UAE Labour Law, in MOHRE’s subordinate regulations, and in the contracts themselves. Getting to them under pressure is the hard part. This piece is an attempt to do that systematically. In practice, I’ve seen employers try to classify situations like these as unauthorised absence or grounds for suspending salary payments and watched those decisions turn into legal disputes.
The legal framework: Federal decree-law No 33 of 2021
The UAE’s current labour statute – Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations (the labour law) does not contain a standalone force majeure provision. That matters from the outset: the concept of force majeure in the employment context is assembled from several interconnected provisions, not extracted from a single article.
The broader force majeure doctrine under UAE law is rooted in the Civil Transactions Law, but its application to employment relationships is constrained and requires careful handling.
The key provisions in play for the current situation break down as follows. The employer’s obligation to pay salary on time flows from the general duties set out in the labour law – Article 13 in particular – as well as from the Wage Protection System (WPS) requirements.
The Labour Law does not expressly regulate the temporary suspension of an employment contract, which means such situations are determined in practice by the contract terms, MOHRE guidance, and the specific facts. Article 43 governs termination and requires a lawful basis; absent one, the employer may face liability.
The closure of airspace is not, by itself, an automatic basis for suspending salary or terminating a contract. The legal consequences depend on what the specific contract says and how the situation is characterised.
Force Majeure in the employment contract: What to look for
Most employment contracts in the UAE, particularly those signed before 2022 and not revised after the new labour law came into force, contain force majeure clauses lifted from commercial agreements. That creates a set of practical problems.
First, standard drafting lists “war, natural disasters, epidemics, and acts of governmental authority” as force majeure events, but rarely calls out airspace closure or restrictions on international movement specifically. Whether the clause applies will therefore turn on a broad reading, and UAE courts have historically approached expansive interpretation with caution.
Second, even where force majeure technically applies, employment contracts, unlike commercial ones,s do not give an employer an automatic right to stop paying. In labour law, force majeure typically permits suspension of performance only, and only where the impossibility is complete and temporary, not partial or structural.
Third, there is a meaningful distinction between an employee who cannot physically reach the office and one who is unable to work at all. Where remote work is possible, particularly if the contract contemplates it, or where the employee is in fact working, the force majeure basis for suspending salary is considerably weaker.
The mistake many companies make is applying commercial contract logic to employment relationships, where the level of worker protection is significantly higher.
Salary obligations: Three scenarios
In practice, the situation facing stranded employees maps onto three recurring scenarios, each with different legal implications.
Scenario one: the employee is working remotely from abroad. The obligation to pay salary remains intact. An employer can raise questions about working hours and output, but not about the level of pay. Attempts to withhold part of the salary on the basis of physical absence are legally exposed in this scenario.
Scenario two: the employee cannot work at all, neither in person nor remotely, due to circumstances directly caused by the airspace restrictions or related disruptions. This is where a force majeure clause has the most traction. Even so, the employer is required to: (a) document the force majeure event; (b) give the employee notice within the timeframe specified in the contract; and (c) continue paying salary up to the point of any formal suspension unless the contract expressly provides otherwise.
Scenario three: the employee is abroad on annual leave and cannot return. This is the most difficult position for the employer. Leave is a period during which salary is paid regardless. The inability to return on time due to circumstances outside the employee’s control is not unauthorised absence. An employer that treats it as such is exposed to a subsequent claim for unlawful withholding or wrongful termination.
What employees need to know and do right now
Legal uncertainty is not the same as defencelessness. If you are stranded abroad and unsure how your employer intends to classify the situation, the law is on your side – provided you act correctly.
First: document everything. Save confirmation of cancelled or rerouted flights, screenshots of airline notifications, and official communications about airspace restrictions. This is your evidence base. It is what separates involuntary absence from unauthorised absence in the eyes of MOHRE and a court.
Second: notify your employer in writing. Send a formal communication by email, not just a message describing the situation and confirming that the reason for your absence is beyond your control. The absence of such a notification can be used against you later. Keep all responses from your employer.
Third: keep working remotely if you can. The fact that you are continuing to perform your duties is a significant asset to your position. It removes the employer’s argument that you are failing to meet your obligations and makes any attempt to suspend your salary legally vulnerable.
Fourth: if your salary is delayed or withheld, do not wait. The Wage Protection System records all payments, and MOHRE accepts complaints online through the Tasheel platform.
A payment delay beyond the period prescribed by law is a standalone violation separate from any question of whether force majeure applies to the underlying obligation. You have the right to claim payment, and the mechanism to do so.
MOHRE’s position and enforcement practice
The Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation has historically taken a worker-friendly position on salary disputes. The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 established precedent in analogous situations: MOHRE issued guidance clarifying that the closure of a business or an employee’s inability to be physically present was not an automatic basis for stopping salary payments.
It is also worth noting that UAE courts apply the principle of construing ambiguity in favour of the employee in dubio pro operario when resolving labour disputes. Where a force majeure clause is ambiguous, a court will most likely choose the interpretation that preserves the employer’s salary obligations.
The central question is not whether force majeure has occurred. It is what your contract actually says and how that sits against the current Labour Law.
The most common mistake companies are making right now is treating a force majeure clause as an automatic release from obligations. In the UAE labour law, that approach rarely holds.
The bottom line
The closure of airspace is a logistical crisis. The scale of the disruption does not determine its legal consequences for employers and employees; they are determined by the quality of the contractual documentation, the timeliness of the response, and an accurate understanding of what the law actually says.
UAE labour law does not give employers a blank cheque in a crisis. But it does provide the tools to manage one lawfully if those tools are used correctly and early enough.
The writer is the founder and CEO of Legaline.
