Loss of EOSB Due to Unjustified Absence (Saudi Labor Law Article 80, Clause 7)

Termination due to unjustified absence is one of the most frequently invoked grounds for summary dismissal under the Saudi Labor Law. However, Article 80, Clause 7, which empowers employers to terminate employment without EOSB, notice, or indemnity, is counterbalanced by strict procedural requirements that protect the worker.
If the employer fails to comply with these warning and documentation procedures, the termination is considered unlawful, and the worker retains their full EOSB entitlement.

Defining the Two Absence Thresholds

To legally rely on Article 80, Clause 7, the employer must prove that the worker’s unexcused absence exceeded one of the following two thresholds within a single contractual year:

These thresholds are cumulative, meaning once the limit is exceeded, the employer may initiate termination proceedings - but only after satisfying the mandatory written warning procedures.

👉 Read the full legal guide on EOSB exclusion and forfeiture →

The Mandatory Written Warning Procedure

Article 80 requires a step-by-step warning process before an employer can legally terminate a worker for absence. Each threshold has its own distinct procedure:

Case 1: Intermittent Absence (More than 30 Days)

Two conditions must be met:

1. Warning Trigger: A written warning must be issued once the worker’s total intermittent absence reaches 20 days.
2. Termination Threshold: If, after the warning, the worker’s cumulative unjustified absence exceeds 30 days, the employer may proceed with termination and EOSB deprivation.

Case 2: Consecutive Absence (More than 15 Days)

The process accelerates in continuous absence cases:

1. Warning Trigger: The employer must issue a written warning once the absence reaches 10 consecutive days.
2. Termination Threshold: If the absence continues past 15 consecutive days, the employer gains the right to terminate the contract without EOSB.

Procedural Due Process Requirement

Even when the thresholds and warning steps are satisfied, the employer must:

• Notify the worker in writing of the proposed termination.
• Allow the worker to state their defense or justify the absence before finalizing dismissal.
  Failure to provide this opportunity invalidates the termination, regardless of the absence duration.

The Critical Importance of Employer Compliance

The warning and defense requirements in Clause 7 are not optional - they are statutory conditions designed to prevent arbitrary dismissal.

Consequences of Non-Compliance:

• If the employer fails to issue the required warnings or denies the worker’s right to defense, the termination becomes invalid.
• The case then falls under Article 77, which governs unlawful termination.
• In such cases, the worker becomes entitled to:
  • Compensation (at least two months’ wages).
  • Full EOSB calculated per Article 84 (half-month per first five years, full-month thereafter).
  • Any accrued wages, leave pay, or other entitlements.

Key Rule:

In Saudi Labor Law, procedural compliance is not a formality - it is a legal prerequisite for any valid disciplinary termination.

Conclusion

Article 80, Clause 7 provides a legitimate ground for termination due to unjustified absence. However, the employer’s ability to deny EOSB depends entirely on their strict adherence to the prescribed warning and documentation procedures.
Employers should maintain written evidence of every step - warnings, communications, and opportunity for defense - to ensure legal validity.

Any unresolved disputes or questions must be formally directed to the relevant Saudi authorities for official clarification and binding decisions.