Lesson 5 — Article 4: eleven exclusions, and naming which one
Article 4 lists the cases excluded from the Wage Protection System. There are exactly eleven, the list is closed, and it is worth having them accurately, because several circulated versions are not.
| # | The case excluded by Article 4 |
|---|---|
| 1 | A worker with a wage-related labour claim referred to the competent court, or for which an executive instrument has been issued, within the limits of the wage or the period subject of the claim |
| 2 | A worker against whom an absconding report has been filed, throughout the validity period of that report |
| 3 | A worker whose liberty is restricted under an order or judgment of a competent authority, for the period of restriction during which work cannot be performed, provided the Ministry is notified with supporting documents and without prejudice to wages already due |
| 4 | A worker on approved unpaid leave, for the period of that leave, provided the Ministry is notified and the required documents are submitted |
| 5 | Seafarers working on ships, on a request submitted by the establishment and in accordance with the Ministry's decision |
| 6 | Foreign workers employed by foreign establishments or their UAE branches who receive their wages outside the UAE, on a request by the establishment and after the workers' approval |
| 7 | Workers holding mission work permits for a duration not exceeding 3 months |
| 8 | Fishing boats owned by individual citizens |
| 9 | Public taxis owned by individual citizens |
| 10 | Banks and financial institutions |
| 11 | Places of worship |
Source: MR 340/2026 Art. 4.
Two features of that list are worth noticing. Seven of the eleven carry a condition — a limit on the amount or period, a maximum duration, a notification to the Ministry, a request submitted by the establishment, or the worker's own approval — so the case alone is rarely the whole answer. And the last four are not workers at all: items 8 to 11 exclude activities and entities rather than individuals.
In Odoone. Setting a worker's WPS Regime to Excluded (Art. 4) takes them out of the ratio entirely, and the module requires you to name which of the eleven cases applies. The reasoning is the whole point: the list is closed, and an unexplained exclusion cannot be supported if the Ministry asks.
The worked example, and it is not the one people expect. Return to the establishment from Lesson 2 with the general manager unpaid: the ratio was AED 190,000 over AED 250,000, or 76.0%. Now suppose one technician on AED 18,750 has an absconding report filed against him, which is case 2. He leaves the ratio, so his wage comes out of the denominator — and the wage you did transfer to him comes out of the numerator too. The ratio becomes AED 171,250 over AED 231,250, or 74.1%.
An exclusion is not a way to improve a ratio. Removing a worker you paid removes wages from the top of the fraction as well as the bottom, and the ratio falls. Exclusions exist because the resolution places those cases outside the system, not because they are a lever you can pull in a difficult month.
The failure mode. Excluded becomes the regime people reach for whenever a payment is awkward: a worker mid visa transfer, a disputed final settlement, someone who left on the 20th. None of those is in the list. If you cannot point at a numbered case and, where that case requires it, at the notification or the request that supports it, the worker belongs in the ratio.