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