Qatar’s human resources (HR) law obligates all government agencies to make optimal use of HR to realise objectives, develop individual skills and maintain a fair and safe working environment.
Therefore, a complete understanding of their duties and rights, according to a clear-cut legal framework in the case of injustice, drives employees to efficiently do their jobs.
But we have a chronic legal dilemma regarding a number of articles of the HR law, which sometimes harm employees and strip them of their rights.
In the wake of problems caused by these ambiguous articles, civil servants have been impatiently waiting for over two months for the amendments to HR Law No. 8/2009.
In 2009, the Cabinet said a review of the law was due after three years. Unfortunately, the committee in charge of drafting the amendments has not finished is work yet. We call on the committee to take into account the following suggestions:
1. In chapter III, appointment should be done on merit and through public announcement. This article should be activated because it is evident that some unqualified people were appointed and even promoted to high positions.
2. Articles in chapter IV do not make a distinction between operational and supervisory jobs. There’s no exact ministerial classification of operational and supervisory missions as some ministries and authorities carry out both duties at the same time. There should be a unified table of positions with job descriptions and qualifications required for promotion and bonuses.
3. There should be a clause in chapter VI of the law that outlines evaluation of employees according to clear-cut standards. An employee may be stripped of an earned promotion because of annual evaluation.
4. Employees with “good”, instead of “very good”, evaluation reports should be promoted according to seniority in chapter VII. Why should a law-abiding civil servant be denied the right to promotion after spending the required years in a certain position? He might be qualified for a higher evaluation grade, but his superior officer may withhold his due for personal reasons. A promotion in this regard would be qualitative, not exceptional. Authorities make exceptional promotions, while seniority automatically upgrades an employee to a higher post.
It would be useful if civil servants were surveyed on the drafted amendments prior to its endorsement. Lawyers known for their patriotic feelings and legal experience should also be consulted.
Regulations should be explained in an uncomplicated way and annexed to the law to avoid any future arguments over ambiguities as loopholes would be a misfortune for civil servants.
We thank our wise leadership for setting up a court for administrative disputes. But what we have observed is that the court accepts grievances that date back to no more than 2007, the year it was founded. It rejects any claims of administrative abuse prior to that date. What will oppressed civil servants with claims prior to 2007 do?
We also wonder why most of the HR law’s articles are derived from foreign countries with different administrative environments. Wouldn’t it be appropriate if the law conforms to Qatar’s socioeconomic and cultural characteristics?
Some retired civil servants haven’t got their financial and occupational rights. We wonder on what pretext these people are being denied their rights.
Is there any intention to restore those denied their claims according to the law? How would these people get their dues?
Finally, why do ministries and authorities refuse to pay the end of service amount that is stipulated in the law? End of service is not a donation or aid being paid from the pockets of these officials.
