Resignation before end of contract term.

1) You can't impose anything on him.  That is very clear in the labor law

2) The law is silent on this but if it goes to labor court, the usual ruling is in the employee favor i.e. you have to give a letter

3) You can do either.  But if you release him immediately, you WILL STILL have to pay him for the notice period which means both options have same outcome

4) Yes, he is entitled to pro-rata vacation days

@XTang, Thanks for your feedback.

The labor law stated clearly that the 30 days vacation is due after completing 1 full year. Has there been any amendment to this statement?

Also LMRA mentions that the employer can sue for damages as a result of the breach or premature cancellation of a time-specified contract.

I don't think the labor law should be 1 sided in favor of employee only.

What I am talking about is intrepetation of labor law i.e. the view courts generally take.

For example, the 30 days vacation is due after completing 1 full year means that the employee HAS THE RIGHT TO AVAIL of the vacation.  The individual days themselves become due every month and if you check with your HR/Finance teams, they would be adding them to the employee entitlement and accuring for the leave balances in the balance sheet.  Article 58 of the Bahraini Labour Law stipulates that an employee is entitled to 30 days of annual leave. The employee is entitled to receive payment in lieu of the accrued leave days.  Your intrepetation of the labor law is ignoring this last line in italics.

For the second point, you can sue for damages of course. However, again, the point you are missing is that you will have to SUBSTANTIATE and DEMONSTRATE the exact damage that took place due to his premature cancellation of the contract. In the overwhelming majority of the disputes, this is next to impossible to prove for any employee below a C-level.  And especially if no fraud or embezzlement or public reputation impact (attributable to the employee) was involved.

The labor law is not one-sided.   In all fairness, your questions come across as wanting to penalize the employee because he decided to leave you...............and this is exactly what the labor law is designed to prevent.  If, for example, you decided to fire the employee and gave him termination pay as per the law..........you as a business would be totally secure from any lawsuit or threat that he makes..........and the labor law protects the business in that regard.   Keep in mind that people have an inalienable right to leave employment for whatever reasons........no one is a slave.  No labor law would try to stop that right by making it complicated or costly for people to leave and instead, what they do is what we call missed opportunity i.e. you leave early, you get less indemnity.........less vacation days etc etc.

Now you can do whatever you are thinking of doing and you will get away with it IF the employee doesn't go to court.  I am commenting on what may happen if they do go to court.  And this guy being a local, having no language barriers and in his country............I am 100% sure that he will go to court.

@XTang

I think these subject are sometimes vague and have several interpretations that can oppose eventually.

It is true that the company does calculate 2.5 days per month and account it assuming no dispute or breach of contract. It surely will be accountable to pay it to employee if it terminated the agreement not the employee.

Regarding you second to last paragraph, this is definitely not the point; this isn't a revenge; but in all fair regulation there should be a strict action to both parties to commit to a certain agreement. I am afraid you are wrong on the business protection since a company will be obliged to pay the full salary of employee for the remaining period of a contract if it terminated him before the end of the contract.

I was giving you an overall example re: termination.  Going into details, distinguishing between limited/unlimited contracts and time of service, you may not need to pay for the remaining period of the whole contract.  The point I was making is that any and all termination without cause are highly contentious.  Employees have big emotional swings but the business has grounds to get rid of them if it serves their interest. And thus it is protected.

I think we are debating the principles of employment and contracts.  To keep it simple, you cannot force someone to keep working for you..........just like you can't force someone to remain married to you.  So the strict action to commit to agreement comment does NOT apply from a common sense standpoint.   People can't be forced to commit.   Now, you are saying that there should be financial penalties if they break the contract to drive such "false" commitment.  My point is that the labor law has NOT specified any such penalties.  You may not like it but let me tell you, having lived and worked all over the world, the labor laws in the GCC are biased against the employees.   

On the leaves, as I said, you can choose how you want to view it.  I am just sharing my experience across multiple court cases as well as normal employment practices by large companies.

@XTang

I appreciate your opinion and vast experience in these matters.

I was referring to limited contracts only.

I guess the idea here is not to oblige anyone to stay with you even if he contractually decided so but rather control the practice of entering and exiting a job; even in marriage there are penalties to divorce of course depending on religion or gender; if no restrictions or penalties to premature exits the business will not sustain and recruiting will be a lot more difficult.

Thank you again

Yep, but see here is the thing...............I have seen companies try to prevent employees leaving by using many methods like bonds etc.  What actually ends up happening is that the employee mentally checks out and becomes unproductive while waiting for time to pass.  So in reality, it is actually good that the employee comes to you and says that I want to go (as he has no fear).  The alternative would have been the guy feeling trapped and then becoming unproductive.   On a side note, in marriages, there is more of a penalty because you are affecting someone's life...........work, it is just a job after all .

@XTang

I have hired many people over the past 20 yrs,, i have recruited the good ones and the less good, not the bad as I can easily detect them from start.

Some are really good in terms of performance and ownership and easily moldable to their job and responsibilities and usually I do the max support to keep them not under obligation and restrictions but rather incentives; the less good try to play around and spend the time with no achievement; their purpose is only salary as settlement until their next job. Those I try my best to mentor them in order to change their habit and succeed in their job but in most cases I fail; the mind set is not easy to change.

Unfortunately, some of them knows the tricks of the law or been fed with what to do to make the best out of their posts with no outcomes to company.

I agree,, marriage is much more complicated.