This report examines interviews gathered in May 2026 about a dispute between employees and Unionaire. Contested accounts are attributed to their sources, and the company’s response issued that month is included. The interviews do not, by themselves, establish that a court has resolved the dispute or that the workers’ circumstances have remained unchanged since they were interviewed.
Fifteen workers at Unionaire said they were told on 5 May 2026 that their employment had ended, with the decision backdated to the beginning of the month. According to workers interviewed by Zawia3, they received neither advance notice nor an official explanation for their dismissal, and had not been paid the financial entitlements they believed were due under labour law, despite many having spent years with the company.
The company disputes that account. In a statement issued on 14 May 2026, it denied dismissing the employees concerned, described the cases as absences from work and said it had called on them to return. The accounts below address notice, contracts, commissions and proposed settlements without assuming a judicial outcome that the reporting documents do not establish.
Unionaire is an Egyptian electrical and household-appliance manufacturer established in 1995 by businessman Mohamed Fathy Othman. It manufactures and distributes air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, cookers, televisions and small appliances. It operates a network of showrooms and service centres in Egypt and exports to Arab and African markets.
Over the years, the company has expanded its production lines and sales operations, relying on distributors, retail dealers and major retail chains. Its group also includes sister companies involved in manufacturing and marketing.
According to company figures reported in April 2025, Unionaire’s exports rose to approximately EGP 750 million in the first quarter of 2025, compared with EGP 600 million in the same period of 2024, an increase of 25%. The increase was presented as part of its expansion into export markets and its effort to raise exports’ share of production.
In statements in December 2024, chairman Mohamed Fathy said the group had begun building what he described as the largest electrical-appliance factory in the Middle East and North Africa, with investment of approximately EGP 6 billion and annual production capacity valued at EGP 20 billion. He said 75% of output would be allocated to exports and 25% to the domestic market, with an annual export target of $100 million for the new facility.
At the time, he said the factory was intended to open at the end of 2026, with integrated production lines for cookers, refrigerators and built-in appliances. He also cited targets of $600 million in total Egyptian investment and EGP 14 billion in sales during 2025, alongside exports of EGP 1.5 billion in 2024.
These are reported export figures, investments and corporate targets, not financial statements establishing net profits. Announcing factory and sales targets in 2024 does not itself demonstrate their subsequent achievement. They are presented here as the company’s stated expansion plans, separately from the dispute over employees’ entitlements.
Complaints to the Labour Office and Cabinet
The workers who said they were dismissed in May 2026 filed an official incident report challenging the company’s actions, numbered 3319 Administrative at the Second October Police Station. They also submitted a collective complaint to the Labour Office, numbered 1939.
Several interviewees said they filed 15 separate complaints with the Cabinet on 11 and 12 May 2026. The complaint numbers they cited included 12239977, 12236719, 12236457, 12236398, 12274621, 12240042, 12236938 and 12275121.
Mostafa Karam, one of the employees who reported losing his job, said he had spent approximately 15 years within the Unionaire group. That included six years at a business under the same management, formerly called Air Cool and subsequently renamed Fine Stone. In 2017, he moved to the main plant of the International Company for Air Conditioning and Electrical Appliances in the Third Industrial Zone. He said that after transferring, he discovered he had not been covered by social insurance during his initial years at the first business.
Karam told Zawia3 that the latest round of uncertainty began in March 2026. Workers were already anxious because of what he described as repeated waves of layoffs in 2018, 2020 and 2021, followed by further departures between February and May 2026. At a meeting on 5 May, he said, a group of employees were informed they were “no longer on the payroll as of 1 May”, making the decision retroactive by four days.
He said management subsequently asked them to attend company headquarters to submit resignations and complete clearance procedures. Some refused to sign before learning what they were legally entitled to receive. Others, he said, came under financial pressure that led them to accept settlements he considered meagre in relation to their years of service.
According to Karam, the company offered those who rejected the termination decision a return to work in positions below their previous roles. Supervisors and area managers would become promoters or sales representatives on lower pay. Workers viewed this, he said, as administrative retaliation and psychological pressure intended to push them into resigning.
Karam also described a dispute over employment contracts. He said management did not give staff copies of their contracts, and that some workers had recently been asked to sign new temporary contracts backdated to January and ending in August of the same year, notwithstanding their lengthy service. In his view, the purpose was to deprive them of end-of-service entitlements and legal compensation. He said the workers had begun legal action, including incident reports and collective complaints to the Labour Office and Cabinet, involving 15 employees.
Another worker, who asked not to be identified, said he had worked for the company since 2016 as a sales representative in its major-accounts division. After finishing a shift, he received an evening call from his direct supervisor asking him to report to headquarters the next day to resign and end his employment. He said he attended on 6 May to claim his entitlements, only to find that several days had been deducted from his leave balance as “casual leave”. He denied taking those days or signing documents confirming that he had.
He told Zawia3 that his contract remained valid until 31 August 2026, meaning that almost four months were left when he said he was dismissed. He also maintained that the company had not observed the legal notice requirements before ending his employment.
In his account, management offered one month’s salary, plus his leave balance after deducting the disputed days, as a “bonus” for ending the employment relationship. It refused, he said, to pay what he claimed for the remaining contract period. He also complained of overdue commissions: half of January’s commission had been deducted, four months of commissions remained unpaid, and February’s commission had been paid to other employees but not to the group that said it had been dismissed.
The married 36-year-old described his circumstances at the time as “extremely difficult”. After approximately ten years with the company, he said, he had no source of income and feared being unable to pay his rent or support his family.
The dispute has a longer history. In 2018, Unionaire’s factory in the industrial zone of 6 October City experienced major labour protests, including a sit-in lasting several days. Workers demanded overdue payments and an end to what they described as arbitrary management measures.
Workers said at the time that the protests followed reductions in basic wages and incentives, deductions they considered unjustified, work on public holidays without fair compensation, and the dismissal of numerous employees without payment of their entitlements.
The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms condemned what it described as arbitrary measures against 15 Unionaire workers. It argued that the alleged events did not appear to be an isolated case, citing a pattern of pressure on employees and withholding financial entitlements, including earlier dismissals affecting dozens before Ramadan.
According to the commission’s statement, workers accused the company of withholding commissions due to approximately 400 sales employees since January 2026 despite their meeting sales targets. It described delayed or withheld payments as direct economic pressure on workers and their families. It also said employees reported pressure to sign resignations in exchange for limited payments, while 15 workers filed incident report 3319 and complaints with the Labour Office and Cabinet.
The commission called on the Ministry of Labour to investigate urgently, including by examining attendance records, entry and exit cameras, payroll and commission records, warning letters and any internal investigation minutes. It said oral, retroactive termination, if established, could breach Labour Law No. 14 of 2025. It also called for the workers’ return pending investigation, payment of overdue entitlements and protection against retaliation for complaints or peaceful expression.
A Worker Describes More Than Thirty Departures
A further interviewee who said he had been dismissed, and who requested anonymity, claimed that management had moved towards reducing staff from February onwards, dismissing more than 30 employees between February and May 2026. Most, he said, had not received their financial entitlements; some accepted amounts he regarded as far below what the law provided.
He told Zawia3 that he had worked for nine years as a promoter, or sales representative, in the company’s branches. He had not expected the decision to affect him, given what he described as his strong performance, before being abruptly told he was no longer with the company.
The dispute intensified when he demanded his legal entitlements. Management told him his contract was not permanent and would expire in two months, he said, although he maintained that he had signed no new contract for almost two years. During the discussion, a manager produced a contract bearing a signature he denied was his. He questioned the document’s validity and said the exchange caused confusion within management.
The worker argued that his continued employment, salary payments and social-insurance coverage after the last contract he had signed expired meant he should be treated as employed indefinitely. He said he began legal procedures immediately and was pursuing his complaint towards referral to the labour court. He also alleged that employees were required to work on public holidays without the statutory compensation, leaving a substantial accumulated balance of unpaid leave.
The Company’s Response: No Dismissal Decisions and a Call to Return
During the original reporting, Zawia3 sought comment from management through messages and requests for clarification. The company had not answered those questions when these interviews were completed in May 2026.
Separately, Unionaire issued a public statement on its official page saying it was following social-media coverage of an incident at one of its facilities. It said some published information was inaccurate and incomplete and did not reflect the full circumstances, potentially harming the company’s reputation and its workforce.
The company said it respected employees and complied fully with their rights under the law and its workplace policies. It maintained that organisational and administrative measures were taken within a legal and institutional framework that protected all parties and preserved workplace stability.
In a statement reported by Al Mal on 14 May 2026, the group denied issuing dismissal decisions against the employees concerned. It said the cases involved absence from work without lawful justification and that its invitation to return remained open. It also pointed to channels for complaints and claims through management and human resources. This differs from the workers’ account; the report does not substitute its judgment for the authorities responsible for resolving the dispute.
Notice Periods and the Nature of the Contract
Labour lawyer Yasser Saad told Zawia3 that dismissal without at least two months’ notice constituted unfair dismissal. In his explanation, ending an employment relationship before the contract’s stated expiry without observing legal notice requirements fell into the same category, even where the contract contained an end date.
Legal clarification: The reference to two months in that comment does not match the general notice period for indefinite contracts under Article 156 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025, which provides for three months. Inadequate notice alone does not resolve every question about the lawfulness of termination and compensation. The contract type, reason for termination and established facts must be considered in each case.
Saad said the relevant employment relationship should be considered across the worker’s total service, not merely through each contract in isolation. Repeatedly signing short or temporary contracts did not, he argued, erase accumulated service or its legal consequences. He also argued that a worker whose service exceeded five years should be treated as employed indefinitely, even if the relationship began with temporary contracts, and that long-serving workers should receive at least three months’ notice.
Determining the contract’s legal classification and length of service nevertheless requires examining the contracts, renewals, continued performance and other evidence. A five-year rule or provisions governing contracts for a particular task cannot automatically be applied to every contractual arrangement. Neither party’s description replaces judicial determination where the classification is disputed.
On compensation, Saad said the minimum for unfair dismissal was two months’ wages for each year of service, as an established worker entitlement, unless serious misconduct justified dismissal. He criticised enforcement mechanisms, arguing that referral to misdemeanour courts and financial penalties did not sufficiently deter employers, because fines could be less burdensome than complying with employees’ rights.
In his view, the underlying problem was the absence of effective economic sanctions. He proposed measures such as withdrawing licences, restricting activities or suspending commercial privileges, arguing that these could provide meaningful deterrence and secure compliance with labour rights.
Article 157 of the labour law requires a legitimate and sufficient reason to terminate an indefinite employment contract and provides that termination should take place at a time appropriate to the circumstances of the work. Article 155 separately addresses a contract concluded to perform a particular task: it ends when that task is completed and can be explicitly renewed. Continued performance after completion of the original work amounts to implicit renewal for similar work. These are task-contract provisions, not a universal rule for every fixed-term contract. The same article states that where the original or renewed work takes more than five years, the worker may not terminate the contract before that work is completed.
For indefinite contracts, Article 156 sets a three-month written notice period. Article 164 requires an employer who ends such a contract without notice, or before the notice period expires, to pay an amount equivalent to the worker’s wages for the notice period or its unexpired part. That period counts towards service, with the associated employer obligations continuing.
Article 165 provides compensation of at least two months’ wages for each year of service where an employer terminates an indefinite contract for an unlawful reason, without prejudicing other legal entitlements. These distinctions matter because the workers’ accounts raise both disputed contract classifications and disputed grounds for ending employment.
A New Law and Questions About Enforcement
In December 2025, approximately three months after the new labour law took effect, Zawia3 documented 42 labour protests between September and mid-December in a report titled “The New Labour Law: 42 Protests in 100 Days, While the Minimum Wage Remains on Paper”. The reporting drew on newspaper archives and workers’ statements across several sectors and raised questions about workplace oversight.
Kamal Abbas, general coordinator of the Centre for Trade Union and Workers’ Services, told Zawia3 that many employers prioritised profit over workers’ rights. He attributed this to insufficient follow-up by the Labour Ministry, despite inspectors having powers to record violations and initiate enforcement. Those powers, he argued, were not exercised consistently, leaving employees to confront employers directly, particularly where private-sector trade-union organisation was weak.
Abbas referred to Article 105 of the new law and its requirement for periodic inspections of covered establishments. He said implementation did not adequately reflect the effectiveness the legislation was supposed to provide, pointing to reported wage violations and irregular oversight.
Article 105 specifically concerns inspections to verify compliance with National Council for Wages decisions, and requires employers to maintain records of workers and the wages due to each. A complaint does not itself establish a violation; the provision highlights the importance of records and inspection in checking one.
Abbas said stronger protection required enabling independent trade unions, more consistent ministry follow-up and actual enforcement of the law, rather than limiting oversight to inspection visits or formal campaigns.
Journalist Hisham Fouad, who specialises in labour issues, described dismissals at Unionaire and other businesses as evidence of the new law’s failure. In his assessment, it served what he called “savage liberalism”.
He told Zawia3 that confronting what workers described as unfair dismissal required more than demanding changes to provisions allowing termination or failing to guarantee reinstatement. It also required media, human-rights and political pressure on the Ministry of Labour to protect the weaker party in the employment relationship.
“Without workers being prepared to organise, they will not be able to confront the employer,” Fouad said, arguing that the history of Egypt’s labour movement showed the importance of union organisation and collective solidarity.
He recalled examples from the 1940s, when industrial areas such as Shubra El Kheima had active union committees. Solidarity strikes could follow attempts to dismiss workers, he said, while collective funds supported dismissed colleagues and helped workers withstand crises.
In the current security environment, Fouad argued, workers should not wait for ready-made solutions but should study their movement’s history and its experience of organisation and collective action. He said emerging labour leaders needed a broad union structure open to different trade-union and political forces, capable of sharing organisational and legal expertise and supporting workers in disputes.
He also cited the Coordinating Committee for the Defence of Workers’ Rights, which, he said, had played an important role since 2005 in providing legal and union support and opposing policies and legislation that strengthened capital’s position at the expense of wage earners.
The Unionaire dispute brings the relationship between employees and employers in Egypt’s private sector back into focus, particularly amid repeated complaints about termination without proper procedures or payment. The workers interviewed insist on their rights and reject what they describe as unfair dismissal. The company maintains that it complied with the law and denies wrongdoing.
The specialists interviewed argue that resolving such disputes requires effective enforcement and oversight, so that the rights written into employment law are observed in workplaces. Establishing what happened in individual cases still depends on evidence, the parties’ responses and the procedures available to investigate and decide contested claims.
