UAE, MY SUCCESS STORY. CHAPTER 18: DORSCH HOLDING

Dorsch Holding was a well-established company in Europe and the largest construction firm in Germany. As a result, the Abu Dhabi Municipality invited Dorsch Holding to develop the city’s infrastructure.

The Chief Financial Officer, Mr Neumann, travelled from Abu Dhabi to Dubai to interview me. As it later transpired, the entire UAE branch relied on him. We sat in a café and had a long conversation over a cup of coffee. He spoke about the company, its operations, and the specifics of its work, while I shared my experience, my knowledge, my skills, and my previous achievements.

?

I was offered the position of HR Manager with a salary of 18,500 dirhams per month, along with the prospect of a promotion. For the first time in my 12 years of working in the UAE, I was offered the role of HR Manager—not an administrator, not a specialist, but a managerial position. I was entrusted with leading a department of four people. The situation changed dramatically with an American education.

?

I had to return to Abu Dhabi. By this time, my daughter had safely travelled to Russia, where she had been accepted into an Olympic club for figure skating. Nothing was keeping me in Dubai, so I moved back to Abu Dhabi and had to transfer my visa once again from Dubai to Abu Dhabi.

?

However, there was an issue with the visa. The application had been submitted, and it was expected to be ready at any moment. Meanwhile, I had already begun my duties—there was much to be done, and there was no waiting. I was at my desk reviewing documents when, suddenly, inspectors from the Ministry of Labour arrived and came directly to me.

?

"Where is your visa?" they asked. "It is in process," I replied. "Why are you violating visa regulations as an HR Manager?"

?

The Ministry of Labour inspectors explained that one cannot commence work until a valid work visa has been issued, even if the contract has been signed and is already in effect. While the employer is obligated to pay wages from the date specified in the contract, the employee is not permitted to start working until their work visa has been obtained.

?

Since I had all the necessary documentation proving that my visa was in process and due to be issued imminently, the inspectors issued only a warning. However, they made it clear that next time, a fine would be imposed. What was peculiar was that there were two other employees in a similar situation, and the inspectors targeted only us, bypassing everyone else. This led me to suspect that someone had tipped them off, directing them to check specific individuals.

?

This incident underscored the importance of professional HR management in carefully coordinating visa issuance dates with employment contract start dates. Otherwise, a situation could arise where the contract begins before the visa is ready, leaving the employer obliged to pay wages while employees remain at home, unable to work.

?

The visa was issued the following day, but I could not shake the suspicion that the entire situation had been orchestrated by the company’s PRO—a local Arab who had been eyeing my position. He was the only one who visited the Ministry of Labour daily, had access to visa statuses, and had the opportunity to alert the inspectors.

?

Furthermore, other issues soon surfaced. For instance, site workers—who were not based at the head office and, therefore, largely unnoticed—began approaching me with complaints about systematic delays in visa processing. Many had expired visas that had not been renewed in a timely manner, resulting in fines. Uncertainty loomed over who was responsible for paying these fines and when the new visas would be issued. Understandably, employees did not want to work illegally.

?

I began reviewing the complaints and discovered that the PRO had performed his duties in an exceptionally poor, shoddy, and mediocre manner. He was chronically disorganised, lacked the ability to maintain records and manage document flow, frequently allowed visas to overstay, and incurred fines that were repaid at the company’s expense. However, the sheer number of fines was so significant that the company was downgraded from Category B to Category C, leading to an increase in administrative fees. On an annual basis, given the company’s workforce of 800–900 employees, the difference in these fees could amount to as much as one million dirhams per year.

?

Furthermore, an embezzlement of 18,000 dirhams was uncovered—an amount for which the PRO failed to provide any supporting documentation. There were no receipts or records indicating where the money had been spent. I gave him a few days to account for the missing sum. In response, he became furious, threw a briefcase at me, but ultimately failed to justify the expenditure. As a result, he was dismissed.

?

It soon became apparent that terminating the employment of a UAE national was not a straightforward matter—indeed, it was almost impossible. The PRO turned out to have influential connections within the Abu Dhabi Municipality, which happened to be our main client. The municipality made it clear that if we did not reinstate the dismissed PRO, we would no longer be awarded contracts.

?

Subsequently, we discovered that the company’s receptionist—who was at the centre of all office gossip—was, in fact, the PRO’s wife. She made it her business to eavesdrop on office affairs that did not concern her and relayed everything to her husband. He, in turn, passed the information on to the Abu Dhabi Municipality. This meant that our client had insight into all of our internal matters—details we would have preferred to keep confidential.

?

Under pressure, we were compelled to reinstate the PRO, but not at the head office. Instead, we reassigned him to a distant project site, where he had no responsibilities and merely received a salary. He was content with this arrangement and soon settled down. Additionally, we restricted his wife’s access to confidential information. She remained at the reception desk, answering phone calls, while assistants and secretaries were strictly instructed—under threat of dismissal—not to share any information with her, nor to engage in any discussions beyond what was necessary.

?

The management appointed a new PRO, a Lebanese national, who was highly intelligent and competent. It was evident that he was passionate about his work. I refrained from interfering in his responsibilities, as he instinctively knew what needed to be done without requiring unnecessary instructions. He reported directly to me. In one conversation, he mentioned that his brother had previously worked as a manager at a major national bank in Abu Dhabi and had been granted UAE citizenship due to his position. At the time, in 2006, this was the only case I was aware of where a foreigner had acquired UAE citizenship through employment.

?

Prior to my tenure at Dorsch Holding, an incident had occurred involving the individual responsible for safety regulations. Ironically, he himself violated these regulations, was struck by a lorry, and suffered permanent injuries, leaving him partially disabled and impotent. He publicly recounted his ordeal and demanded compensation. However, the police had been present at the scene and had documented the incident in their official report, confirming that the accident was entirely his fault. Consequently, the company was compelled to terminate his employment under Article 120. The former employee then demanded 40,000 dirhams in compensation. I advised settling the claim to avoid protracted legal expenses. However, being a German company with a rigid adherence to principles, they opted to contest the claim in court. The trial dragged on for six months, requiring the presence of the CEO and legal representatives at every hearing. In the end, the court ruled that Dorsch Holding must pay the injured party 28,000 dirhams—not on legal grounds, but on the basis that the company was a wealthy organisation, while he was an unfortunate, unemployed disabled man. The total costs of the litigation—including lawyers' fees, notarised translations of all Arabic court circulars (which the management could not understand), and the CEO’s time and missed opportunities—far exceeded the original 40,000 dirhams that had been initially requested.

?

Additionally, it was revealed that for years, the company had been disbursing severance payments in advance to employees who requested them. This was not an occasional occurrence—hundreds of employees had taken advantage of this practice over time. Given that the company had been in existence for nearly 20 years, and that many of its site workers and supervisors had been employed for a similar duration, the cumulative amount of severance pay that had been distributed was substantial.

?

There was documented evidence that the money had been paid from severance pay. However, at the time, few people realised that this was not permitted—any amount the employer paid from severance pay was nullified upon termination of the contract. The employer was then obliged to pay the full amount again, regardless of any prior payments. No one cared what the employer had already paid; ultimately, they were held responsible.

?

I went to the Ministry of Labour to seek a solution and understand what could be done. They stated that nothing could be done—the severance pay was established precisely to ensure that, in the event of job loss, an individual would not be left without financial support and forced into criminal activity, thereby helping to control the country's crime levels. Furthermore, this money was not intended solely for the employee but for their entire family, as all family members were entitled to it.

?

We managed to resolve the issue by retrospectively documenting all previous payments as "interest-free loans" provided by the company. The employee’s severance pay served as a guarantee for the loan repayment. This approach was acceptable, provided the employee agreed and signed the necessary documents.

?

At that time, I frequently visited the Ministry of Labour, ever since my days at Williams International. The UAE labour law was ambiguously drafted, allowing for varied interpretations. Given that Williams International employed a significant number of Britons, they used their linguistic expertise to interpret the legislation to their advantage—often not in the employer's favour. As a result, I had to go to the Ministry of Labour to clarify the interpretation of each clause. However, during arbitration, the Arabic version of the law was considered the authoritative text, and the Ministry of Labour’s interpretation generally favoured the employer. Otherwise, private companies across the UAE would have had to shut down immediately, unable to afford the financial burden of employee payments and compensation. To the Ministry of Labour’s credit, they took our recommendations into account, and over time, the UAE labour law improved. One such improvement was shifting the weekly day off from Thursday to Saturday, aligning with the global business schedule and preventing a four-day gap in international business operations. This change, however, took ten years to implement, as Saturday was a holy day for Israel, and the Arab world was initially reluctant to adopt it as a day off.

?

Dorsch Holding’s organisational structure was as follows: the head office occupied two floors (the 5th and 10th) of a pink building opposite the Sheraton Hotel. Approximately 100 employees worked at the head office, while the remaining 700–800 staff members were deployed at sites outside Abu Dhabi, overseeing the construction of buildings, drainage systems, and roads. Our workforce consisted of construction workers, foremen, and site supervisors responsible for ensuring proper execution of work and compliance with safety regulations. These employees lived and worked in harsh conditions, enduring extreme heat. Occasionally, they would visit my office to voice concerns about their difficult working environment, low wages, and perceived injustices within the company.

One day, I decided to visit the construction sites myself to observe the working conditions firsthand. Armed with a notebook and pen, I intended to record their requests, concerns, and suggestions.

?

When I arrived, I was met with tears. Many workers had been with the company for 18 to 20 years and had never once been visited by senior management from the head office. Not a single member of the top management had ever come to see them. These grown men—construction workers and labourers—stood there in tears, overwhelmed by the mere fact that someone from senior leadership had finally taken an interest in their lives, work, and well-being. They were deeply moved that someone cared enough to listen to them and take note of their concerns.

?

This highlights a major failing of top management, one that is common across many companies. Senior leaders often fear engaging with labourers and unskilled workers, worried that they will then be obligated to fulfil all their requests. However, there is no requirement to implement everything immediately. Simply asking employees about their needs does not mean immediate action must be taken.

?

Firstly, in most cases, workers appreciate being heard—especially by top management—as it validates their worth and demonstrates that their concerns matter. Secondly, some requests may be unreasonable and can be filtered out. Thirdly, any requests or recommendations that are reasonable, rational, and beneficial to the business can be implemented gradually. If this process is communicated clearly to employees, they will understand. They are not ignorant—they simply need to be kept informed rather than left in a vacuum of silence.

?

My experience at Dorsch Holding highlighted the key challenges faced by HR managers in large organisations: employee visa issues, bureaucratic complexities, corruption, financial irregularities, labour disputes, and a lack of effective workforce management.

?

It is crucial to carefully coordinate visa processing dates with the commencement of employment contracts to mitigate legal risks and financial losses. HR must remain vigilant regarding employee activities, particularly those managing critical processes (such as PRO services), as negligence and misconduct can result in substantial financial damage to the company.

UAE labour laws are designed to protect employees, and HR managers must be mindful of the potential legal implications of their decisions, especially concerning compensation and dismissals. It is unacceptable to neglect staff, particularly those working under challenging conditions. Leadership should actively engage with employees, take an interest in their working conditions, and listen to their suggestions. Such an approach fosters trust, enhances motivation, and helps prevent internal conflicts.

?

This experience underscored the importance of strategic HR management, efficient administration, and ethical workforce governance. In the long term, these factors are fundamental to a company's success.