This report deals with testimonies collected in May 2026 about a dispute between workers and the Unionaire company. The disputed facts are attributed to those who recounted them, and the report includes the company’s response published in the same month. These testimonies do not, in themselves, indicate that a judicial body has settled the dispute or that the workers’ situation remained unchanged up to the date of publication.
At the Unionaire company, 15 workers said they were informed on 5 May 2026 that their employment had been terminated and that they were no longer on the company’s payroll, with retroactive effect, four days after the beginning of May, without receiving any prior notice or official explanation of the reasons for the dismissal, and without being paid their financial entitlements as stipulated by the Labour Law, even though most of them had spent many years at the company, according to the testimonies of a number of workers who spoke to Zawia3.
The company, in a statement issued on 14 May 2026, denies dismissing these employees, and says that the cases relate to absence from work and that it has invited them to return. Between the two accounts, the following testimonies address questions of notice, contracts, commissions and settlements, without presuming a judicial outcome that does not appear in the report’s documents.
Unionaire is one of the Egyptian companies working in the manufacture of electrical and home appliances. It was founded in 1995 by businessman Mohamed Fathy Osman, and it produces and distributes a varied range of appliances, including air conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, gas cookers, screens and small appliances. It owns a network of showrooms and service centres in the Egyptian market, in addition to export activity to a number of Arab and African markets.
Over the past years, the company has expanded its production lines and sales sector, relying on a network of distributors and retail sales agents, as well as dealing with major retail chains, and it has brought in a number of sister companies working in fields related to manufacturing and marketing.
According to statements published about the company in April 2025, Unionaire’s exports in the first quarter of 2025 rose to about EGP 750 million, compared with about EGP 600 million in the same period of 2024, recording growth of 25%. This increase comes as part of the company’s expansion in export markets and its raising of the share of exports in total production, according to the company’s statements.
The chairman of the company’s board, Mohamed Fathy, said in earlier statements in December 2024 that the group had begun building what he described as the largest electrical appliances factory in the Middle East and North Africa region, with investments estimated at about EGP 6 billion and a production capacity of up to EGP 20 billion annually, with 75% of production allocated for export and 25% for the local market, targeting annual exports from the new factory worth 100 million dollars.
He added in his statements at the time that he was aiming to open the factory at the end of 2026, comprising integrated production lines including gas cookers, refrigerators and built-in products, noting that the company aims to raise its total investments in the Egyptian market to 600 million dollars and to achieve sales of up to EGP 14 billion in 2025, in addition to recording exports of EGP 1.5 billion in 2024.
These are export, investment and target figures announced by the company, not financial statements that prove its net profits. Moreover, the factory and sales targets contained in the 2024 statements do not mean, merely by being announced, that they were later achieved. They are therefore presented here to clarify the announced expansion plans, while separating them from the dispute over the workers’ entitlements.
Complaints to the labour office and the Cabinet
The workers who were dismissed in May 2026 filed an official police report against the measures taken by the company, registered as (No. 3319 administrative) at the Second October police station. They also submitted a collective complaint to the labour office (No. 1939)
A number of the workers we spoke to indicated that they had submitted 15 separate complaints to the Cabinet over 11 and 12 May 2026, among them complaints numbered: ( 12239977, 12236719, 12236457, 12236398, 12274621, 12240042, 12236938 and 12275121).
Mostafa Karam, one of the employees dismissed from the company in May 2026, says that he spent about 15 years in the Unionaire group of companies, including 6 years at a company under the same management that was known as “Air Cool” before its name was later changed to “Fine Stone”. He then moved in 2017 to work at the main factory of the International Company for Air Conditioning and Electrical Appliances Industries in the Third Industrial Zone. He adds that after moving to the factory he was surprised to find that he had not been insured during his first years of work at the first company.
Karam explains, speaking to Zawia3, that the latest layoff crisis began in March 2026, which created a state of tension among employees before the news of the dismissals was announced, because of what he described as “repeated waves of layoffs” that the company had seen in previous years, including 2018, 2020 and 2021, and most recently during the period from February to May 2026, before a group of employees were informed, during a meeting held on 5 May, that they were “no longer on the workforce as of 1 May”, that is, retroactively by four days.
He explains that the management later asked them to go to the company’s headquarters to submit their resignations and complete clearance procedures, but a number of employees refused to sign before learning their legal entitlements. He adds that some of them came under financial pressure that pushed them to accept settlements he described as “paltry” compared with their years of service.
According to Karam, the company offered those who rejected the dismissal and layoff decision a return to work, but in jobs lower than their previous positions, by turning supervisors and area managers into “promoters” or sales representatives on salaries lower than their current ones, which the workers considered “administrative abuse and psychological pressure” to push them to resign.
Karam also spoke about the contracts crisis inside the company, noting that the management does not give employees copies of their contracts, and that in May 2026 a number of workers were surprised to be signing new temporary contracts, backdated, running from January and ending in August of the same year, despite their long years of service. He considers that the aim of this is to deprive them of end-of-service entitlements and legal compensation. He notes that the dismissed workers have already begun taking legal action, including filing reports to record the situation and submitting collective complaints to the labour office and the Prime Minister’s Office, explaining that the complaints cover 15 dismissed employees.
In the same context, another worker at Unionaire, who preferred not to reveal his name, explains that he has worked at the company since 2016 in the key accounts sector as a sales representative, and that one evening he was surprised by a phone call from his direct supervisor, after his shift ended, asking him to go to the company’s headquarters the next day to submit his resignation and end his employment. He said he did go on 6 May to claim his entitlements, but while reviewing them he was surprised that the company had deducted a number of days from his leave balance, on the grounds that they were “casual leave”, although he affirms that he did not take them and did not sign any documents indicating that he had taken that leave.
He adds, speaking to Zawia3, that his employment contract was still valid until 31 August 2026, meaning that the remaining term of the contract was nearly four months at the time of his dismissal, and he considers that the company also did not comply with the legal notice period stipulated before termination of service.
According to his account, the management offered to pay him only one month’s salary, in addition to his leave balance after deducting the disputed days, treating that as a “bonus” for ending the contractual relationship, while it refused to pay his entitlements for the remaining months of the contract term. He also points to the delay in paying the commissions owed to workers, saying that the company deducted half of the January commission, in addition to four months of overdue commissions that have not been paid, adding that the February commission was paid to the rest of the employees except for the group that was dismissed.
The worker, who is 36 years old and married, described his current situation as “extremely difficult”, explaining that he has been left without a source of income after about 10 years spent working at the company, and expressing his fears of being unable to pay the rent on his home and provide for his family.
In 2018, the Unionaire group saw widespread workers’ protests inside the factory in the industrial zone in 6th of October, which escalated into a sit-in lasting several days, demanding the payment of overdue financial entitlements and an end to what the workers described as arbitrary measures by the company’s management.
Workers said at the time that the protests came after decisions to cut basic wages and incentives, in addition to deductions from salaries that they considered unjustified, as well as forcing some workers to work during official holidays without fair compensation, in addition to the dismissal of a large number of workers without any financial entitlements.
For its part, the Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms expressed its condemnation of what it described as the “arbitrary measures” to which 15 Unionaire workers were subjected. It considered that the facts do not appear to be “an isolated individual case”, given what it described as a recurring pattern of pressure on workers and depriving them of their financial rights, pointing to earlier dismissals that affected dozens of workers before the month of Ramadan.
The Commission said in its statement that the workers’ complaints included accusations that the company had withheld commissions owed to about 400 employees in the sales sector since January 2026, despite their meeting sales targets, considering that delaying or withholding these entitlements represents “direct economic pressure” on the workers and their families. It also noted that the dismissed workers affirmed that they had been pressured to sign resignations in exchange for the payment of limited sums of money, while 15 of them resorted to filing police report No. 3319 administrative at the Second October police station and submitting official complaints to the labour office and the Cabinet.
The Commission called on the Ministry of Labour to open an urgent investigation into the incident, including a review of attendance and departure records, entry and exit cameras, payroll and commission sheets, and warning letters and internal investigation records, if any, stressing that terminating an employment relationship verbally and retroactively, if proven, may constitute a clear violation of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025. It also called for the dismissed workers to be reinstated in their jobs until the investigations are concluded, for their overdue financial entitlements to be paid, and for them and their families not to be targeted because they resorted to complaints or peacefully expressed their demands.
Testimony on the layoff of more than thirty workers
One of the workers dismissed from the Unionaire company, who preferred not to be named, revealed that since February the management has taken a course towards laying off workers and reducing their number, and that it dismissed more than 30 workers between February and May 2026, most of whom did not receive their financial entitlements; some received only paltry sums, far less than what the law guarantees them.
He explains, speaking to Zawia3, that he worked at the company for 9 years as a “promoter” (sales representative) in its branches, and that he did not expect the decision to include him “given his efficient performance”, before he was suddenly informed that he was “no longer with the company”.
He points out that the crisis escalated when he demanded his legal entitlements, as the management informed him that his contract was “not permanent” and would end in two months, although he affirms that he has not signed any new contracts for nearly two years. He said that while discussing the matter, he was surprised when a management official produced a contract bearing a signature whose authenticity he denied, saying that the contract was not valid, which caused “confusion within the management”.
According to the worker, his continuing to work, being paid his salary and being insured after the expiry of the last contract he signed makes him a worker on an open-ended contract. He notes that he began taking legal action as soon as he was informed of his dismissal, noting that he is following up on the procedures in preparation for referring the complaint to the labour court later, according to his account at the time of the interview. He also points out that workers were asked to work during official holidays and feasts without being paid the legally prescribed compensation, which caused a large balance of unpaid leave to accumulate.
The company’s response: a denial of dismissal and an invitation to return
For our part, we tried to contact the company’s management by sending a number of messages and inquiries, based on the guaranteed right of reply, but the company did not respond and did not answer the questions by the time these testimonies were collected in May 2026.
On the other hand, the company issued an official statement published on its official page, in which it affirmed that it was following what had been circulated on some social media pages regarding an incident inside one of its facilities, noting that some of what was published contained inaccurate and partial information that does not reflect the full truth of the situation, in a way that may harm the reputation of the company and its employees.
The company affirmed in its statement its commitment to respecting all employees and to full compliance with their rights in accordance with the law and the policies regulating work within it, explaining that any organisational or administrative measures are carried out within a legal and institutional framework that guarantees the rights of all parties and preserves the stability of the working environment.
In a statement carried by Al-Mal newspaper on 14 May 2026, the group denied that dismissal decisions had been issued against the cases being circulated, and said that they relate to absence from work without legal justification, and that its invitation to the workers to return still stands. It affirmed the existence of channels for submitting complaints and claiming entitlements through the management and human resources. This characterisation differs from the workers’ account, and the report does not allow a definitive judgement on the validity of either position in place of the competent authorities.
Between the notice period and the nature of the contract
In this context, labour lawyer Yasser Saad says that any dismissal that is not preceded by notice to the worker of no less than two months is considered, under the law, an arbitrary dismissal, explaining that terminating the employment relationship before the date set in the contract without complying with the legal notice periods falls under the same description, even if the contract has a set expiry date.
Legal check: The reference in this comment to two months does not match the general notice period for an open-ended contract in Article 156 of Labour Law No. 14 of 2025, which sets three months. Insufficient notice alone is not enough to settle all questions of the lawfulness of the termination and compensation; the type of contract, its grounds and the established facts in each case must be determined.
He adds, speaking to Zawia3, that what counts in the contractual relationship is not each contract separately, but the worker’s total length of service in the establishment, noting that the repeated signing of short or temporary contracts does not negate the accumulation of the actual period of work, which entails settled legal consequences. He also explains that a worker whose service exceeds five years is considered equivalent to a worker on an open-ended contract, even if his contractual relationship began with temporary contracts, pointing out that this situation imposes a legal obligation of prior notice of no less than three months before termination of service for long-serving workers.
The characterisation of the contract and the determination of the length of service remain two questions that require examining the contracts, the renewals, the continuation of performance and all other evidence. The five-year rule or the provisions on a contract for the completion of a specific task are not applied automatically to all forms of contracting, and the characterisation offered by any party does not replace a judicial ruling in the event of a dispute.
Regarding compensation, Saad points out that the minimum due in cases of arbitrary dismissal is two months for every year of service, as these are inherent rights of the worker, unless it is proven that serious violations warranting dismissal were committed. He also criticises the mechanisms for applying the current law, explaining that referral to the misdemeanours court and imposing financial fines on employers is not a sufficient deterrent, because those fines are often less impactful than the cost of complying with workers’ rights, as he describes it. He considers that the core problem lies in the absence of effective economic penalties, such as withdrawing licences, restricting activities or suspending commercial privileges, considering that these tools alone are capable of achieving real deterrence and guaranteeing respect for workers’ rights.
The Labour Law regulates the contractual relationship between the worker and the employer in cases of termination of an open-ended employment contract, as Article (157) stipulates that neither party may terminate the contract except with a legitimate and sufficient justification, and that the termination must take place at a time appropriate to the circumstances of the work. Article (155) also clarified that the contract ends with the completion of the agreed work, and may be renewed by explicit agreement between the two parties, and if both parties continue to perform the contract after the completion of the original work, this is considered an implicit renewal for the completion of other similar work. These are the provisions of a contract for the completion of a specific task, and not a general rule for every fixed-term contract. The same article also decided that if the completion of the work takes more than five years, the worker may not terminate the contract before its completion.
Article (156) likewise stipulated, regarding the open-ended contract, that it may be terminated by either party on condition of prior written notice of at least three months, while Article (164) affirmed the employer’s obligation to pay compensation for the full notice period or the remaining part of it if the termination takes place without notice or before the notice period has elapsed, and this period is counted as part of the worker’s service, with all the obligations arising from it continuing.
If unlawful termination is proven, Article (165), regarding the open-ended contract, stipulated the worker’s entitlement to compensation of no less than two months’ wages for every year of service, without prejudice to the other legal rights, thereby strengthening legislative protection against arbitrary dismissal and guaranteeing compensation for the harm done to the worker.
A new law and questions about protection and enforcement
In December 2025, only three months after the new Labour Law came into force, Zawia3, in a report titled: “The new Labour Law: 42 protests in 100 days, and the minimum wage is ink on paper”, documented about 42 cases of workers’ protests during the period from September to mid-December 2025, drawing on newspaper archives and statements issued by workers, covering various sectors, which points to weak oversight mechanisms in workplaces.
In this context, Kamal Abbas, general coordinator of the Center for Trade Union and Workers’ Services, says that many employers are concerned with maximising profits without paying attention to workers’ rights, and he attributes this to the absence of real follow-up from the Ministry of Labour, even though the law grants labour inspectors judicial enforcement powers to record violations and impose fines. However, these powers are not applied regularly, which leaves workers in direct confrontation with employers, especially given the weakness of trade union organisation in the private sector. He points to Article (105) of the new Labour Law, which stipulates that: “The inspection bodies of the competent ministry shall carry out periodic inspection procedures at the establishments subject to the provisions of this law” yet practical application on the ground does not sufficiently reflect the effectiveness of these two mechanisms, as highlighted by many documented incidents of violations related to wages and irregular oversight”.
Article 105 specifically concerns inspection to verify the implementation of the decisions of the National Wages Council, with employers obliged to keep records containing the data of workers and the wage due to each of them. It does not mean that a complaint alone proves a violation; rather, it shows the importance of records and oversight in verifying it.
Abbas adds, speaking to Zawia3, that strengthening workers’ protection requires activating the role of independent trade unions, intensifying periodic follow-up by the Ministry of Labour, and ensuring that the articles of the Labour Law are applied rather than settling for inspection visits or token campaigns.
For his part, journalist Hisham Fouad, who specialises in labour affairs, believes that the dismissals of workers taking place, whether at Unionaire or at other establishments, amount to a “declaration of the bankruptcy of the new Labour Law”, considering that the law “serves only savage liberalism”, in his words.
Fouad adds, speaking to Zawia3, that confronting what he described as “arbitrary dismissal” does not stop at demanding the amendment of the legal articles that allow workers’ service to be terminated and do not oblige employers to reinstate those arbitrarily dismissed, but also requires intensifying media, rights and political pressure on the Ministry of Labour so that it carries out its role in protecting “the weakest party in the production process”.
He points out that “the real solution remains in the hands of the workers themselves”, explaining that the historical experiences of the Egyptian labour movement confirm the importance of trade union organisation and collective solidarity in confronting dismissal decisions, saying: “Unless workers are ready to organise, they will not be able to confront the employer”.
Fouad recalls examples from the history of the labour movement in Egypt in the 1940s, when industrial areas such as Shubra El-Kheima had active trade union committees, and the “solidarity strike” was a direct response to any attempt to dismiss workers, adding that workers at the time also relied on solidarity funds to support those dismissed and to face crises.
He affirms that workers today, “under the current security conditions”, should not wait for ready-made solutions, but must “read their labour history and benefit from its experience in organising and confrontation”, considering that the new labour leaderships have come to need a broad trade union body open to trade union and political forces, which would take on passing organisational and legal expertise on to workers and supporting them in their battles.
He also points to the experience of the “Coordinating Committee for the Defence of Workers’ Rights”, which, according to him, has played an important role since 2005 in supporting workers legally and in trade union terms, and in working to confront legislation and economic policies that “reinforce the dominance of capital at the expense of wage earners”.
The dismissal of workers at Unionaire reopens the file of the relationship between workers and employers in the private sector in Egypt, especially given the recurring complaints of dismissal and termination of service without completing the legal procedures or paying financial entitlements. While the workers hold on to their legal rights, including rejecting arbitrary dismissal, the company for its part affirms its commitment to the law and denies the existence of any violations.
Meanwhile, experts believe that addressing labour disputes requires mechanisms for enforcement and oversight by labour institutions, and for ensuring that employers apply rights and respect workers’ rights.
