MIGRANT WORKERS PROTEST NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES

C O N F I D E N T I A L MUSCAT 000428

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR NEA/ARP, G/TIP, DRL AND NEA/MEPI
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FOR JAMES RUDE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/10/2018
TAGS: PHUM PREL KCRM KWMN SMIG ELAB KMPI MU
SUBJECT: MIGRANT WORKERS PROTEST NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES

Classified By: Ambassador Gary A. Grappo for Reasons 1.4 b/d.


1. (C) Summary: A recent protest by Indian construction
workers over non-payment of wages ended in clashes with the
employing company's security guards. The Indian Embassy in
Muscat and the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) helped resolve the
dispute, with the company agreeing to a timetable to repay
back wages. The MOM is pursuing possible civil penalties
against the company for violating Oman's labor laws. The
workers also alleged that the company defrauded and then
forced them to accept illegal employment in Oman. Post
recommended that the government pursue criminal charges
against the company if an investigation finds these charges
to be valid. End Summary.


2. (C) On June 3-4, approximately 200 Indian employees of a
local construction company protested in the company's
Muscat-area compound over recurring non-payment of wages.
The workers alleged that for the past four months, the
company had withheld half of their monthly salary of 45 Omani
Riyal (OR) (USD 116) as an assurance against the workers
running away or seeking other employment, contacts told
poloff. The protest turned violent on the morning of June 4,
according to an account by the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM)
of the Indian Embassy in Muscat (protect),after the company
loaded most of the 200 complainants onto several buses,
ostensibly for the purpose of transporting them to the
company's headquarters for negotiations. The workers forced
their way off the buses in fear that the company actually was
planning to disperse them to various work sites - an
allegedly common practice among local companies to break
collective action, the Indian DCM stated. Company security
and Omani drivers reportedly then attempted to force the
workers back on the buses, beating them when they resisted.
Some workers responded by throwing rocks and damaging company
property. The violence ended after the Royal Oman Police
(ROP) intervened and detained some of the workers.


3. (C) The Ministry of Manpower's (MOM) Director General (DG)
of Labor Care, Saleh al-Amri, confirmed to poloff that there
had been a protest on the company compound and that the MOM
had helped resolve the dispute. Al-Amri said that the
company's general manager (GM),an Indian national, had
admitted to withholding worker salaries and signed an
agreement with the Indian Embassy and the MOM to settle all
of the employees' claims for back pay within six months. In
addition, the GM agreed to repatriate any worker who did not
wish to continue his employment with the company and pay him
the balance of withheld wages by the end of one month.
According to al-Amri, 106 of the workers involved in the
protest voluntarily requested repatriation.


4. (C) Al-Amri stated that the MOM is in the process of
investigating the workers' allegations and determining how
many of the company's approximately 3,000 employees had their
salary withheld. The company likely is in violation of
Article 51 of the 2003 Labor Law, he said, which requires
employers to pay wages on time and carries a fine of up to
100 OR (USD 260) per violation. On top of the withholding of
wages, al-Amri stated that the workers also allege that the
company's Indian GM - who reportedly is from the same Tamil
village as many of the complainants - lied to them about
their contracts, charged them a usurious recruiting fee, and
may have brought them into Oman illegally. Al-Amri shared
that he requested the Indian Embassy's assistance in
investigating the validity of these claims. The Indian DCM
separately told poloff that his embassy did not review or
attest any of the workers' employment contracts and that he
believes that the workers may have entered Oman without a
valid work visa.


5. (C) Comment: Al-Amri promised to inform the Embassy of
the final charges and total penalties assessed against the
company once the MOM's investigation is complete. Poloff
recommended that the DG strongly consider referring the case
to the Public Prosecutor for possible criminal violations if
the workers' claims are found to be valid. Criminal charges
are unlikely, however, due to the absence of a specific
anti-trafficking in persons (TIP) statute under which the
government could pursue a case, although other laws might
afford a basis for prosecution. Post will continue to follow
developments in the case. End Comment.
GRAPPO