UAE employers must balance legal compliance with procedural fairness in workplace investigations

Workplace investigations are a critical component of maintaining lawful, fair, and respectful employment practices but require a careful balance of legal compliance, procedural fairness, and cultural sensitivities.

Equally important is ensuring that investigations reflect the organisation’s core values and commitment to an inclusive and respectful workplace culture.

Article 44 of the UAE Labor Law No.33 of 2021 outlines the conditions under which an employer may terminate an employee without notice. However, such actions must be preceded by a thorough and procedurally sound investigation, with a number of practical considerations for employers.

Even where an employer chooses to terminate an employee with notice, or even if operating in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) or Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) where the concept of arbitrary dismissal does not exist, conducting an internal investigation remains a best practice. It helps ensure that the decision is well-founded, documented, and defensible, particularly in cases involving performance concerns, behavioural issues, or potential legal risk. As the UAE continues to attract international investment and talent, expectations around transparency, fairness, and due process are rising.

Employers who adopt global standards of procedural fairness not only mitigate legal exposure but also reinforce their commitment to values such as integrity, inclusion, and accountability.

Legal framework and employer obligations

Employers are legally obligated to conduct fair and transparent investigations into allegations of misconduct or grievances.

For onshore companies, these obligations are rooted in Article 39, which governs disciplinary sanctions and mandates that penalties be proportionate and justified, and Article 40, which allows for temporary suspension of employees during investigations, under specific conditions.

Investigations must be documented and aligned with internal disciplinary procedures that are consistent with the Labor Law and its implementing regulations.

In the DIFC and ADGM, it is not explicitly codified in the same way as under the Labour Law, however it is implied through broader obligations of procedural fairness, non-discrimination, and good faith under their respective employment laws, which are grounded in common law principles.

Timelines and procedural fairness

Timeliness is essential and employers must adhere to a number of statutory deadlines. Under the Labour Law, employees may be suspended without pay for up to 30 days during an investigation. However, this should only be done after seeking independent legal advice due to the potential legal and reputational risks. Disciplinary action must be initiated within 30 days from the date the employer becomes aware of this violation and in terms of penalty imposition, no disciplinary penalty may be imposed more than 60 days after the investigation concludes.

In practice, meeting the 30-day deadline can be challenging, particularly for large or complex organisations. For example, if a line manager becomes aware of an issue but delays reporting it, or if the matter takes time to escalate through internal channels (e.g. from the manager to HR, and then to the ethics or legal team) valuable time may be lost before formal action can begin. These internal delays can inadvertently compromise compliance with the statutory timeline, especially where multiple stakeholders are involved or where the allegations are sensitive and require careful handling.

In such circumstances, employers should ensure that internal reporting mechanisms are clear, well-communicated, and prompt, and that those in supervisory roles understand the importance of timely escalation. It is also advisable to implement internal protocols that include early triage or flagging of potential disciplinary issues, so that legal or HR teams can assess urgency and risk at an early stage.

If there has been a delay which means the statutory timelines are compromised, depending on the facts, it is more likely that the employer should continue with the investigation and issuing an outcome, accepting there may be a challenge around the timeline. Abandoning the process altogether may expose the organisation to greater legal, reputational, or employee relations risks—particularly if the underlying issue is serious or systemic. In such cases, transparency in documenting the reasons for delay and the steps taken to mitigate it can help demonstrate procedural fairness and good faith.

Balancing anonymity and fairness

While anonymity can encourage reporting – especially in sensitive cases such as harassment or fraud – it must be balanced with the accused employee’s right to respond to allegations.

It is important for employers to take adequate steps to ensure employee trust is upkept. For instance, employers should protect the identify of complainants where possible and particularly in cases where the complainant has asked to remain anonymous. Employers should also work to ensure the accused has a fair opportunity to present their side and avoid compromising the integrity of the investigation.

Employer should avoid a blanket promise of anonymity as there may be circumstances where disclosure becomes necessary to ensure a fair process or to comply with legal obligations. In such cases, transparency about the limits of confidentiality from the outset is essential. Striking the right balance between protecting individuals and upholding procedural fairness is key to maintaining trust and credibility in the investigation process.

Handling “he said, she said” scenarios

In cases lacking direct evidence, credibility assessments are crucial. Investigators should evaluate consistency and plausibility of each party’s account as well as corroborative details from witness interviews or contemporaneous records – for instance emails, meeting notes or messages. Body language and tone of voice during investigation meetings can offer additional insight, though these should be interpreted cautiously and in conjunction with other evidence.

Thorough documentation of all findings is essential to support any conclusions drawn. This includes not only the final outcome but also the rationale behind credibility determinations, how conflicting accounts were weighed, and why certain evidence was considered more reliable. A well-documented process helps demonstrate procedural fairness and can be critical in defending the investigation’s integrity if challenged.

Investigations, independent oversight and documentation

An employer is deemed to be aware of an incident once any person in a position of authority – such as HR personnel or a line manager – is informed, whether verbally or in writing. As noted earlier, delays in initiating an investigation after this point can undermine the employer’s position in potential legal proceedings.

Engaging an independent third party – such as external legal counsel or a neutral HR consultant – can significantly enhance the credibility and impartiality of the investigation. This approach demonstrates commitment to fairness and transparency, reduces the risk of internal bias, and strengthens the employer’s position in the event of legal scrutiny. This is particularly important in high-stakes cases or where senior employees are involved.

It is also crucial for employers to maintain a clear audit trial. This may include interview notes, evidence reviewed, and rationale for conclusions and disciplinary decisions. Such documentation is indispensable in defending against claims of unfair dismissal or procedural impropriety.

Investigations must be conducted with cultural awareness and in compliance with UAE privacy defamation laws. Employers should avoid public disclosures or accusations, ensure confidentiality throughout the process, and be mindful of the reputational and legal risks associated with defamation.

Whistleblower protections

Although the UAE Labor Law does not yet provide a comprehensive whistleblower framework, unlike the DIFC and ADGM’s framework, employees are protected from retaliation if they file a complaint with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE).

Employers should foster a culture that encourages good faith reporting without fear of reprisal.

Employers who invest in robust, impartial, and well-documented investigative processes – especially with the support of independent advisors – are better positioned to manage risk, uphold employee rights, and maintain a positive workplace culture.