Job Discussion Forums

[neftoprestupnik]

http://www.mcgilllawsuits.com/

I mentioned before that I was a part of the McGill University program in Jubail two years ago. Many people have already posted in this forum about their experiences with McGill, mostly negative, and now it seems that one of our former colleagues has taken up the banner and will attempt to sue the university for damages.

It's not clear yet as to how it will play out. I've spoken to several teachers who were on the program and most of them are not sure if they will take part in the suing, but at the very least it will be fun to sit back and pick at the dead corpse of the McGill-RCJY program for a little bit longer.

[nomad soul]

McGill is correct in this situation: That aggrieved teacher was issued a "government visit" visa (as stated in Arabic on his visa) for "the Royal Commission for Jubail." (Someone double-check my Arabic ; I'm a bit rusty.) In other words, McGill hired teachers to work in Jubail on behalf of the Saudi government. Plus, the Saudi government is the sponsor for this visa type.

That said, the Saudi labor law wouldn't apply to his situation because his "contract for services" (not employment) clearly indicates McGill in Quebec, and not a Saudi entity, as contracting directly with him. Case in point, his salary was paid out in Canadian dollars to his home bank, and he was likely taxed on those earnings too. It's business as usual except that his work site was in KSA for a duration of 9 months. (This is similar to biz/work visit visa conditions in which the worker is employed/contracted by a company or organization in his/her country and essentially gets sent to KSA to do business, fix widgets, conduct training on the widgets, etc., for a Saudi company.) Moreover, 7.6, Governing law of the contract states: "This Contract shall be governed by the laws of Quebec and Canadian laws applicable therein." He can't include the laws of a third party; it's irrelevant.

It is what it is. This is why folks need to be mindful of who their employer actually is. Plus, they need to thoroughly review their contract.

[hash]

DISCLAIMER: The below comments are simply my disinterested opinions. I am not a lawyer nor a member of a legal profession in KSA, USA or Canada and am not rendering "legal advice". I'm simply commenting as a layman.
==============

This case is clearly “actionable”. McGill (henceforth “M”) was in violation not only of KSA law but also of Canadian law. It obviously tried to circumvent both in its favor and contra the teacher contractors’ (henceforth “T”) benefit.

1. The distinction between “services” and “employment” is a false one, at least in this instance They both mean “work” and in this case, specifically, "teach". Even though T was working for McGill (and not for a KSA entity), it is manifest that the work (whatever its exact wording) was going to take place in KSA. Both parties were completely aware of this – No one was surprised when T boarded a plane headed for KSA.

2. Despite what is stated in the contract, T was an employee of McGill (even if it was to be only for 9 months). T was not an “independent contractor” because the terms and conditions as stipulated in the contract for the services T was to “provide” in KSA put McGill and T in an employer-employee relationship.

T was told where to work, when to work, where to reside, what to do, what bank to use, what materials to use and so on. In fact, the only “independence” afforded T was his ability to resign.

This job description clearly precludes any realistic interpretation of T’s job designation as an “independent contractor”. In fact, it is the complete opposite of that.

3. There is no indication – not even a whisper – in T’s contract that he would be working “illegally” in KSA. It is totally unrealistic to expect a Canadian citizen (or any citizen) unfamiliar with KSA legalities to be aware that this illegality even exists or is possible, so to speak, until it is too late – until, in this case, T was in Bahrain and obtained his “Visa” which plainly states that he is not allowed to work in KSA. As far as T was aware, this was the "usual and customary" way to get a work visa for KSA. Why would he suspect anything different? Why would anyone? Clearly, McGill was taking advantage of his "innocence" in these esoteric facts. Is one supposed to hire a lawyer every time one obtains a new job to determine if the job is "legal"? (What a surprise that must have been for T when he read that little phrase clearly printed on his visa, raising, no doubt all kinds of doubts and questions). (His visa clearly indicates (in Arabic) that it was issued in MANAMA (the capital of Bahrain).

4. I don’t see how any disinterested party (such as myself) cannot but conclude that McGill was at fault here. Clearly, it must have known that T and his colleagues would be working “illegally” in KSA. T and his colleagues may not have known it (how could they have? To whom would it even occur to ask whether the job offered was "legal" or not? That's like asking your wife to be if she's currently married to someone else.) but obviously McGill did.

In addition, T was also clearly an “employee” of McGill and not an independent contractor (IC). The fact that the term “independent contractor” appears in the contract, does not thereby render T’s position as an IC. One is not an IC because someone “says so”….one is an IC because the nature of his job legalizes it as such.

(The fact that KSA builds a building and calls it XXX College of Excellence makes it neither a college nor excellent simply by virtue of the fact someone "says" it is so).

5. Even though T has a case, I believe, - (I’m not an attorney) - and his lawsuits are actionable, the question remains: Was there any injury? It doesn’t seem like there was.

Apparently, T completed his contract, got paid on time, got fed, housed and so forth. So whether all this was “illegal” or not is sort of moot, seems to me. There was no injured party. McGill may get a slap on the wrist, but I don’t see how any “compensation” is due, if that’s what T is after. (Unless, of course, there's a lot of additional relevant information I'm not aware of).

(He may be owed "back pay and benefits" if it is determined that he was an employee and not an independent contractor of McGill....but that would be because his employment classification will have been changed to what it should have been originally, not because of any work he performed in KSA.)

=====================
PS...... It is precisely because of situations like this that (usually) Western employers (especially USA ones) long ago stopped having a legal presence in KSA and bringing over USA citizens to work for them in Kingdom. Someone was always suing them. Now, nearly all companies with a USA name are actually Saudi companies formed as "subsidiaries" (or something) of the original USA company - the USA company is thus shielded from such lawsuits and if you want to fight the KSA company in the KSA courts, why, Ahlan wa Sahlan. (This is one reason the original ARAMCO is now Saudi ARAMCO and in the USA it is ARAMCO Services Company. If you're an English teacher, you're working for Saudi Aramco (a KSA company), not ARAMCO Services Company (a USA company) out of Houston.......don't even dream of getting hired by Houston anymore).

[gregory999]

[johnslat]

I'm no lawyer, but I think that any sentence that's starts out this way:

"Despite what is stated in the contract, . . . ."

is not headed in a good direction as far a legal redress is concerned.

Regards,
John

[buravirgil]

But...but..."Cannot but conclude," "actionable," and "HENCEFORTH"!

I'm no ibba yool of English, ybish xaeon wrevo a uyzeqwotjlkv, I can't even umuroway most of the time, but leercee lot Joe Pesci neek propii feeph Marisa Tomei-- buulooseemoomoo kizz kizz. AAiop wuum, "Bitsy-Lee is a cracked kubba on which foodee cups beat out dimple cheeks for donkey monkeys to wrinkle to, while all the spooky we long to move the stars to pity."

Or somethin'

[hash]

[gregory999]

[jackblack55]

Hash; You have a sophisticated understanding of the issue which is impressive to say the least. All your comments are on point. I tip my hat to you sir!

[hash]

[hash]

[cyclistlongdistancerunner]

My gut instinct is that McGill is headed for the rocks. To argue that they are not responsible for what happens in Saudi Arabia - for their program - is pure sophistry.

They are hiring Canadian instructors for a program in a foreign country - and knowingly breaking the law of that country in so doing - if the instructor gets in trouble, they are in effect, throwing that instructor to the dogs.

I am Canadian. No Canadian judge is going to accept the argument that McGill is in no way, responsible.

Au contraire. The teachers so affected should push hard, legally speaking. I think McGill would be forced to settle. Probably out of court.

[MixtecaMike]

Rather than money, they should plead for the heads of Firas and his co-conspirator(s) on a plate. That would make even more people happy, and spread a LOT of joy and sunshine over the Eastern Province.

[scot47]

Many moons ago there was a successful lawsuit in the US against Saudi Arabian Airlines. The Airline "forgot" to make the payment ordered by the court and as a result one of their aircraft was seized at JFK. They paid up and were after that more careful about avoiding lawsuits.

I am not sure if this Magill Saga will have a similar ending.

[buravirgil]

This popped up on one of my feeds today:

http://www.lawprose.org/lawprose-blog/

Because qualifying a post as not written by a lawyer, but aping the language of its discipline is fun!