The safety file is not paperwork. It is the employer's only defence.

Where the duty actually lives

Article 36 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, headed Care, Safety and Professionalism, is a signpost rather than a rule. It binds establishments to Federal Law No. 13 of 2020 on public health and the resolutions under it, then states that "the Implementing Regulation hereof defines the role of the Ministry and the provisions related to the safety, protection and health care of workers". Two provisions carry the actual content.

The first is Article 13(6) of the Decree-Law, inside the general list of employer obligations. It is broader than most safety summaries admit, because it does not stop at equipment:

Prevention, guidance, training and periodic evaluation — four obligations in one clause, and the last of them is a standing duty to re-check rather than a one-off induction. The second provision is Article 22 of the Executive Regulation, which itemises what all of that means.

The nine duties, quoted

Article 22(1) of Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022, expressed as "Every employer shall":

Three of these are documents rather than equipment — (b), (c) and (i) — and they are the three that decide the money.

The clause that prices the list

A work injury in the UAE is expensive for the employer: treatment paid until recovery or the establishment of disability, full wage for up to six months and half wage for six more, and permanent disability compensation of up to AED 200,000. Article 38 of the Decree-Law gives five escape routes, and the one an employer is most likely to reach for is deliberate violation of preventive instructions posted at the workplace.

That escape route is not free-standing. Article 23(3) of the Executive Regulation admits it only "provided that the employer complies with the following rules":

1. Making the worker aware of the detailed instructions on preventing fires and protecting him from the risks he faces on duty, in Arabic and in another language the worker understands where appropriate.
2. Informing him before he starts of the risks of his occupation, requiring him to use the prescribed means of prevention, providing appropriate personal protective equipment and training him to use it.
3. Training him on the safety methods set out in the worker-protection instructions.
4. Educating him on appointment about his occupation's risks and the protection he must use, and placing detailed written instructions at the workplace.

Read the two provisions together and the logic is unusual: the law does not fine an employer for skipping Article 22(b), (c) and (i). It removes his defence. An employer who never posted the instructions in a language the worker reads, never briefed him before he started, never issued and trained him on the PPE, is an employer who pays for the injury even where the worker plainly ignored a rule — because the rule was never established in the form the Regulation requires. The safety file's real function is evidential.

It works the same way on the disciplinary side. Article 44(3) allows dismissal without notice where the worker "violated the instructions of the establishment's by-law related to the safety of work and workers or the workplace" — but expressly "provided that they are written and hung in a visible place and the worker is informed of the same". Unposted rules cannot be enforced by dismissal any more than they can be used to deny compensation.

What the worker owes, and how it is enforced

The duty is not one-sided. Article 22(2) of the Regulation requires the worker to use the protective equipment and clothing provided, follow the employer's protective instructions, refrain from anything that interferes with them, take care of the means of prevention in his possession, and not misuse, damage or destroy them. Article 16(6) of the Decree-Law states the same obligation in the worker's general duties: implementing the occupational safety and health instructions prescribed at the establishment. Article 23(2) of the Regulation repeats it a third time in the injury context.

Article 22(2) closes with the enforcement power: "The employer may set out regulations outlining penalties for every worker who violates the provisions of this Clause." Any such penalty still runs through the ordinary disciplinary machinery — the closed list of sanctions in Article 39, one sanction per violation under Article 41, and, where the employer wants to deduct sums from end-of-service pay, a penalties schedule approved by the Ministry.

Grave danger: the seven circumstances that let a worker walk

Article 45(3) of the Decree-Law lets a worker quit without notice, retaining his end-of-service rights in full, where there is a grave danger at the workplace threatening his safety or health, provided the employer knew of it and took no action indicating its removal. What counts as grave danger is not left to argument. Article 26 of the Regulation enumerates it:

The conditions attached to it are the employer's knowledge and his inaction, not a notice period. And because Article 45 is one of the two articles named in Article 27(1)(b) of the Regulation, a worker who leaves on this ground is inside the case list for transferring to another employer — he does not trade his job mobility for his safety.

At fifty workers, it goes into the rulebook

Article 14 of the Regulation requires establishments employing 50 or more workers to set written rules on the organisation of work, and paragraph 3 puts safety inside them: the regulation of work instructions "shall include the daily working hours, the weekly rest days, the official holidays and the necessary measures and precautions to be taken to avoid work injuries and fire hazards". Paragraph 5 adds the delivery obligation — the employer must inform the worker of these rules by any available means and make him aware of them "in a language he understands".

So above fifty workers the safety instructions are not merely posted on a wall under Article 22(b); they are a required chapter of a required document. The other two obligations that attach at the same headcount sit in the same Regulation.

What a breach costs

Article 22 names no fine, and this is where most write-ups conclude there is none. There is. Article 63 of the Decree-Law is a residual penalty clause covering everything the specific articles missed:

Then Article 62 changes the scale. The fine imposed on employers "would vary according to the multiplicity of workers who committed violations, with a maximum of AED 10,000,000". A safety failure is rarely a failure toward one person — an unposted instruction, a missing extinguisher class, an untrained crew are conditions that apply to everyone on the site at once. That is the clause that turns a site-wide breach into a headcount-scaled exposure. Article 64 adds an aggravation for repetition, and Article 58 preserves any severer penalty available under another law — Federal Law No. 13 of 2020 and local civil-defence and municipality rules sit alongside this, not underneath it.

Separately from the courts, Article 34 of the Regulation vests the Ministry with the administrative penalties in Article 3 of Federal Law No. 14 of 2016, and Article 22(3)(d) of the Regulation makes those penalties an explicit part of the safety regime: the Ministry is to monitor, inspect and apply administrative penalties to "establishments that violate occupational health and safety regulations". Under Article 22(3) the Ministry also monitors compliance with the obligation to provide health insurance for workers.

Article 33 governs the inspection itself. Ministry inspectors monitor implementation "especially with regards to the working conditions, the wages and the protection of the workers while on duty", draw up a report establishing any violation and submit it to the competent authority, and may call on administrative or security authorities for assistance. Article 33(2)(d) places a duty on the employer's side: employers and their representatives "shall provide the labour inspectors with the necessary facilities and data to perform their duty, and shall respond to their summonses or send a representative if requested". Obstructing an inspector is separately punishable under Article 59 by a fine of AED 20,000 to AED 100,000.

The file to build

Everything above reduces to a small set of artefacts, each of which exists to be produced later — to an inspector, to a medical committee, or to a court weighing an Article 38 defence:

1. Posted instructions on fire prevention, occupational risks and accident response, in a visible place, in Arabic plus a language the workforce actually reads. Warning signs on the approach to hazardous areas; technical instruction signs at the machines.
2. A pre-start risk briefing per worker, dated and signed. Article 22(c) and Article 23(3)(b) both fix the timing as before commencement of duty, so a briefing dated after the first shift is the wrong document.
3. PPE issued and trained on, with the training recorded. Article 23(3)(b) requires provision and training; issuing equipment without instruction satisfies half a condition.
4. Extinguishers matched to the materials on site, and first aid kits stocked, with first-aid supervision entrusted to a medical aid specialist under Article 22(d).
5. A periodic evaluation record under Article 13(6) — the clause that makes safety a recurring review rather than an induction.
6. The written work-organisation rules at 50+ workers, with the safety chapter Article 14(3) requires, communicated in a language the worker understands.
7. Health insurance in force, since Article 22(3)(a) makes the Ministry the monitor of it.
8. Injury reporting ready to run — immediately to the medical authority and police, and to the Ministry within 48 hours. The obligations that follow an accident are set out in the work injury guide.

Sources

• Federal Decree by Law No. (33) of 2021 Concerning Regulating Labour Relations — Article 13 on employer obligations, Article 16 on worker obligations, Article 36 on care, safety and professionalism, Article 38 on loss of injury compensation, Article 44 on dismissal without notice, Article 45 on quitting without notice, Articles 58 to 64 on penalties, MOHRE, consolidated English text with amendments (PDF) · UAE Legislation portal
• Cabinet Resolution No. (1) of 2022 Concerning the Executive Regulation of Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 — Article 14 on work-organisation rules, Article 22 on safety, protection and health care of workers, Article 23 on work injuries, Article 26 on grave danger, Article 33 on work inspection, Article 34 on administrative penalties, MOHRE, full English text (PDF) · UAE Legislation portal
• Employment laws and regulations in the private sector — u.ae, official UAE Government portal

Verified 2 September 2026 against the full English texts published by MOHRE for Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 and Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022. The nine duties in Article 22(1), the worker's duties and the employer's penalty power in Article 22(2), the Ministry's coordination and inspection role in Article 22(3), the four preconditions on the Article 38 defence in Article 23(3), the seven grave-danger circumstances in Article 26, the 50-worker rules in Article 14, the periodic-evaluation duty in Article 13(6), the posted-and-communicated condition in Article 44(3) and the penalty figures in Articles 59, 62 and 63 are quoted or closely paraphrased provisions. Federal Law No. 13 of 2020 on public health and Federal Law No. 14 of 2016 on administrative penalties are cited as referenced by Articles 36 and 34 respectively. General information, not legal advice.