Covid-era pay cuts accepted by the employee bind him, and RAK courts must follow RAK cassation precedent on interest

Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation, Labour Appeal No. 17 of 16 JY, judgment of 21 November 2021

Court
Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassationمحكمة تمييز رأس الخيمة
Case
Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation, Labour Appeal No. 17 of 16 JY, judgment of 21 November 2021
Arabic citation
الطعن رقم 17 لسنة 16 ق عمالي، جلسة 21/11/2021
Topics
Employment · Courts & arbitration
Laws applied
Civil Transactions Law 1985 (repealed)
The judgment
Read it on courts.rak.ae ↗ (Ras Al Khaimah Courts, مجموعة الأحكام والمبادئ القانونية الصادرة في المواد المدنية والتجارية والعمالية من محكمة تمييز رأس الخيمة, judicial year 16 (2021), PDF pp. 363–380)
Summary written
31 October 2026
Print

The principle

Wage includes only amounts that are fixed and regular; payments due only when their cause arises are not wage unless the law says otherwise. An employment contract is consensual, so the parties may agree to reduce pay, and the employee's acceptance may be express or implied, including during the Covid-19 precautionary measures. Legal interest runs from the date of the claim at the 9% rate settled in Ras Al Khaimah practice. As the apex of the emirate's judicial system, the RAK Court of Cassation's precedents bind the lower courts, which may not follow the case law of other emirates' courts instead.

The case and the decision

The employee sued his employer in the Ras Al Khaimah labour court for AED 584,375 in unpaid entitlements, with legal interest. During the Covid-19 period the employer had paid him AED 20,000 a month from February to September 2020 and nothing from October 2020 to early January 2021. The employee argued that the reductions were not valid because no addendum to his contract had been signed as Ministerial Resolution No. 279 of 2020 on employment stability in the private sector required. The Court of Appeal accepted the employer's position on the reduced pay and, relying on case law of the Dubai courts, altered the interest awarded. On the employee's appeal, the Court of Cassation held that wage under Article 1 of the Labour Relations Law covers what is paid for the work and grants that have become customary, but not amounts lacking permanence that are due only when their cause arises. It discussed the hardship doctrine in Article 249 of the Civil Transactions Law and the Covid-19 resolution, which allowed employers to reduce pay for non-national workers by agreement and in stages. An employment contract is consensual, and the parties may agree to reduce pay; the worker may accept expressly or impliedly, the change takes effect once validly agreed, and whether the worker impliedly accepted it is for the trial court, which had reasonably found acceptance here. On interest, legal interest runs on civil and commercial debts from the date of the claim if the amount is not left to the court's discretion, and the settled practice of the Ras Al Khaimah courts is to award it at 9% a year. The Court of Cassation is the final stage and summit of the emirate's local judicial system, and its principles bind the lower courts, which may not rely instead on the case law of courts outside the emirate. The judgment was quashed on interest, and the first-instance award of 9% interest from 13 March 2021 was restored; the rest of the appeal was dismissed.

Why it matters

Two points matter beyond Covid. RAK courts will treat an employee's conduct, such as continuing to work and accepting reduced pay, as consent to a pay cut, even without a signed addendum. And the RAK Court of Cassation asserts that its own precedents, not those of Dubai or other emirates, govern RAK litigation, including the 9% legal interest rate.

Laws applied

Article 1 of Federal Law No. 8 of 1980 (Labour Relations Law)
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by UAE Labour Law.
Articles 130, 132, 249 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law) — text of articles 130, 132, 249
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Transactions Law 2025.
Articles 1, 5 of Ministerial Resolution No. 279 of 2020 on employment stability in private-sector establishments during the precautionary measures against Covid-19

In the court’s words

“الأجر. مفهومه. لا يدخل في مفهوم الأجر ما يعطى للعامل من مبالغ ليست لها صفة الثبات والاستقرار ولا تستحق إلا بتحقق أسبابها”

Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.

Related judgments

The RAK Free Zone arbitration scheme does not take away the courts' jurisdiction over free-zone disputes

RAK Cassation — Labour 9/6 JY · 8 May 2011

Arbitration in UAE civil and commercial matters rests on the parties' free agreement, which defines its scope and removes the dispute from the courts. The Ras Al Khaimah …

Agreeing to arbitrate needs special authority, but a company that relies on the contract ratifies the clause

RAK Cassation — Other 17/6 JY · 12 June 2011

Only someone with capacity to dispose of the disputed right may agree to arbitration; a company must act through a person with power to dispose of its assets. A general p…

An agreed delay penalty is payable without proof of loss unless the debtor proves none occurred or it is excessive

RAK Cassation — Commercial 47/13 JY · 13 January 2019

A penalty clause fixes in advance the loss the parties expect from a breach, so the creditor need not prove loss; the debtor must prove that no loss occurred or that the …

Limitation must be pleaded and correctly characterised; a void earlier claim does not fix the date interest runs

RAK Cassation — Commercial 54/14 JY · 26 January 2020

The plea that a claim is barred by lapse of time is not a matter of public order; it must be raised before the trial court, and its period depends on the correct characte…

A worker injured through the employer's fault may sue in the civil court in tort, beyond the labour-law compensation

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Civil 96/2024 · 26 June 2024

Compensation for work injuries under Article 37 of the Labour Relations Law and Cabinet Resolution No. 33 of 2022 is a statutory, no-fault entitlement based on risk, calc…

A managing partner is accountable as a trustee and is always liable for fraud in managing the business

RAK Cassation — Other 56/4 JY · 14 February 2010

A partner who manages a partnership acts as agent of the company and the other partners and holds the company's funds as a trustee. If paid, he is liable for loss caused …

Source. Summary written by Polaris from the judgment published by the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation on courts.rak.ae (Ras Al Khaimah Courts, مجموعة الأحكام والمبادئ القانونية الصادرة في المواد المدنية والتجارية والعمالية من محكمة تمييز رأس الخيمة, judicial year 16 (2021), PDF pp. 363–380), read on 31 October 2026. Party names are anonymised in the court’s publication.
Published for general information by Polaris Corporate Services FZ-LLC. It is not legal advice. This page is a summary written by Polaris; it is not the judgment and is not an official translation. Read the judgment on the court’s official service before relying on it. A judgment decides the dispute before the court; its weight in a later case depends on the court, the facts and any later change in the law or in the court’s own case law.

Begin a Conversation

Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.

Arrange a Consultation →