Legal Systems Efficiency and Adequacy when Addressing Unfair Dismissal: A Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – UK Comparative Study

Abstract

Employment law, and the different ways in which employer – employee, employer – worker, and employer – independent contractor relationships are understood have undergone a significant reworking in many international jurisdictions in recent years. There is a significant global scholarly consensus that the combined effects of globalisation, ever more dynamic digital communication technologies, and a movement to less certain, more precarious work have contributed to these new developments. As the traditional England and Wales (EW) employment status boundaries have become blurred, the ways in which remedies for unlawful employer conduct might be pursued by aggrieved employees, or workers have been given extensive, often high level scrutiny. In this five Chapter comparative study, the EW unfair dismissal regime and its Kingdom of Saudi Arabia counterpart are the subject jurisdictions. On an initial consideration of these particular employment law – unfair dismissal systems, it might appear that effective bases on which a leading Western liberal democracy, as evolved from its common law origins, and a developing world nation whose laws are derived from Islamic Sharia principles are not ideal comparative study material. However, it is the dramatic contrasts in the respective systems that give the comparisons their particular appeal in this work. It is readily apparent that both EW and KSA employment laws are well-aligned with the general international law principles that are promoted by the International Labour Organisation, and its 1982 Convention (subject to KSA foreign worker treatment discussed in Chapter Three). These strong, if generalised shared EW and KSA commitments made to protect the dignity of labour, workers’ rights to be free from abusive employer conduct – including unfair dismissal – are outlined and explained in Chapter One. These concepts provide the next four Chapters with a strong comparative law foundation. As the Study moves through its Chapter Two EW Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal analysis that is based on selected leading cases and academic commentaries, through a more first principles-based Chapter Three consideration of KSA law (its 2005 legislation, and accompanying Regulation), it becomes apparent that the EW framework is the product of a more focused, and employee rights-centred approach than the KSA law reveals. The direct Chapter Four EW – KSA comparisons are extended to determine which laws are currently better equipped to deal with ongoing employment relationship status evolution. In this Chapter, the recent Uber v Aslan EW line of cases, and related ‘gig economy’ literature tends to reinforce the proposition: EW unfair dismissal law is a better constructed framework than the KSA model. It is equally clear that both jurisdictions have unfair dismissal law weaknesses, thus proving that this seemingly ill-suited EW and KSA comparative study has law reform benefits for policy-makers in both jurisdictions. However, the more sobering outcomes fall on the KSA side of the Chapter Four comparison ledger, and the Chapter Five Recommendations. As currently constituted, KSA unfair dismissal law will prove difficult to adapt to fast-changing, real world employment relationship status changes. The Chapter Five materials include direct references to EW ERA 1996 s.230(3) worker definitions that KSA policy-makers should immediately consider incorporating into the 2005 law. The Chapter Four Recommendations set out specific KSA employment law reform proposals intended to remedy its identified weaknesses.