1. Introduction

This report details the employment situation of an Indian employee hired by a Rwandan company. The employee was recruited based on their experience in professional production and operation, with specific qualifications in leather goods manufacturing, experience in branded footwear, and a degree in Human Resources and Production with SAP HCM knowledge. The recruitment process, initial agreements, and subsequent employment conditions are outlined below.

2. Recruitment and Initial Agreements

• Recruitment Method: The recruitment process was conducted remotely via WhatsApp chat and WhatsApp calls.
• Initial Agreement: The employer initially offered a salary of 800$ per month for the first six months,1000$ for the second six months plus monthly allowances 100$ .
• Final Agreement: Through WhatsApp communication, the employer and employee agreed on a salary of per month for a three-year contract. This agreement was documented via WhatsApp chat.
• Invitation Letter and Job Offer: The employer provided an invitation letter and Job Offer Letter Salary 9600$ per Annum and the detailed appointment letter would be provided upon joining. The invitation letter also mentioned that the company would cover living and travel allowances.
• Purpose of Invitation Letter: The letter was used by the employee to obtain a Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) in India, a requirement for the Rwandan work permit.

3. Commencement of Employment

• Start Date: The employee commenced employment on July 15, 2022.
• Travel Expenses: The employer reimbursed the employee for extra ticket fare that the employee had paid out of pocket, approximately in cash.
• Verbal Agreement on Working Hours: During a verbal meeting, the employer informed the employee about a 12-hour shift schedule, including both day and night shifts. The employer stated that extra hours would be paid in accordance with Rwandan labor laws.

4. Discrepancies and Concerns

• Working Hours Discrepancy: The employee expressed concern about the 12-hour shift, as their previous experience was limited to 8-hour shifts. The employer insisted on the 12-hour shift, stating that it was company policy and that the employee should comply.
• Salary Discrepancy: The employee was paid per month plus allowances, which was less than the agreed-upon per month.
• Communication Issues: The employee repeatedly attempted to discuss the salary and working hours with the employer but was consistently put off with excuses of urgent meetings and delayed discussions.
• Working Conditions: The employee worked 12-hour shifts, had two days off per month, and worked on public holidays.

5. Key Issues and Violations

• Breach of Contract: The employer failed to adhere to the agreed-upon salary of $1000 per month.
• Unfair Working Conditions: The employee was subjected to a 12-hour shift, which was not initially agreed upon and caused the employee discomfort.
• Lack of Communication: The employer avoided addressing the employee’s concerns regarding salary and working hours.
• Potential Exploitation: The employee, as a foreigner, may have been taken advantage of due to their unfamiliarity with Rwandan labor laws and company policies.
• This constitutes a serious case of labor exploitation and multiple violations of the Law Regulating Labour in Rwanda (Law Nº 66/2018). The employer has engaged in “Contract Substitution,” wage theft, and unfair dismissal.
• Below is a breakdown of the specific mistakes the employer made, the laws they violated, and the truth regarding the ILO agreements and local hiring practices.
• 1. The “Manager” Trap & Overtime Theft
• The Mistake: The employer classified the employee as a “manager” retroactively to deny overtime pay for 12-hour shifts. The Law:
• Rwandan Labor Law (Law Nº 66/2018): The standard work week in Rwanda is 45 hours (or 40 hours under recent public sector adjustments, but 45 is the long-standing private sector limit).
• Violation: By forcing a 12-hour shift (72 hours/week if 6 days, or 60 hours if 5 days), the employer exceeded the legal maximum. Any hour over 45 must be paid as overtime (usually 1.5x). The employer owes the candidate roughly 15–25 hours of overtime pay per week for 12 months.
• 2. Violation of Weekly Rest (ILO Breach)
• The Mistake: Providing “only 2 week off” (assuming 2 days off per month). The Law:
• Mandatory Weekly Rest: Every employee in Rwanda is entitled to a minimum of 24 consecutive hours of rest per week. This is non-negotiable.
• ILO Convention C014 (Weekly Rest): Rwanda has ratified this convention. By forcing the employee to work weeks without a 24-hour break (only 2 days off a month implies working 13-14 days straight), the employer directly violated international law and Rwanda’s treaty obligations.
• 3. Contract Substitution .
• The Mistake: Using a “dummy” offer letter ($9,600/annum) for the Police Clearance/Visa while having a different verbal/WhatsApp agreement ($800 + $100 + raise). The Law:
• Written Contract Requirement: Any employment contract for a duration of 6 months or more must be in writing. Failing to provide the detailed appointment letter at joining is illegal.
• Deception: The employer likely used the lower/flat salary figure to standardize their tax liability or visa processing, hiding the complex allowance structure. In Rwanda, “allowances” are often taxable. If they paid allowances cash-in-hand to avoid tax, they implicated the employee in tax evasion.

5. Did the Employer Follow ILO Agreements?

No.

• ILO Convention C014 (Weekly Rest): VIOLATED. As noted above, the employee was denied their fundamental right to weekly rest.
• ILO Convention C001 (Hours of Work): VIOLATED. The 12-hour shift without overtime is a breach of the spirit of fair working hours, even if Rwanda has specific local adjustments.
• Protection of Wages: The failure to pay the promised $1,000 in the second six months is a violation of the verbal contract. In labor law, a verbal promise (proven by WhatsApp chats) can be binding if a written contract was unlawfully withheld.

6. “Did Rwanda have no such qualified professional?”

This is the “Labor Market Test.”

• The Truth: To hire a foreigner, a Rwandan employer typically must demonstrate to the Directorate General of Immigration and Emigration (DGIE) that there were no qualified Rwandans available.
• The Gap: Employers often bypass this by writing very specific, niche job descriptions that only the foreign candidate fits, or by claiming the role requires “specialized international experience.”
• Likelihood: It is highly probable that a qualified manager for this role did exist in Rwanda. The employer likely hired from India not because of a skill shortage, but because a foreign worker on a visa is easier to control and exploit (as seen by the refusal to pay overtime or provide proper contracts).

Summary of Employer Mistakes

Violation	Explanation
Illegal Overtime	Forced 12-hour shifts; claimed “Manager” exemption falsely to avoid paying.
Rest Day Violation	Gave only 2 days off/month. Law requires 4 days off/month (24h per week).
Wage Theft	Did not pay the promised $1,000/month in the 2nd half of the year.
Contract Breach	Failed to provide the “detailed appointment letter” upon joining.

Analysis: The Impact of Conciliation on Subsequent Statutory Claims

​Case Summary and Context

​This report analyzes an employment dispute (RSOC 00080/2024/TGI/GSBO) involving an employee (Claimant) and their former employer (Respondent) in Rwanda, specifically focusing on the legal impact of a conciliation agreement on the employee’s right to claim statutory dues in a subsequent court proceeding.

​The Claimant, a foreigner on a verbal/undetermined contract, was initially terminated in July 2023. The first phase of the dispute concluded with a “Minutes of Total Conciliation” on September 21, 2023 (as documented in the attached image), where both parties agreed to:

1. ​The Claimant returning to work.
2. ​Payment of the July 2023 salary plus allowance ().
3. ​The Claimant taking annual leave.
4. ​Refunding of the flight ticket cost.

​Critically, the conciliation report states: “Considering what has been agreed upon by the parties, we declare total conciliation and issue the minutes of such total conciliation signed after being read and agreed to by the parties. These Minutes of total conciliation puts to an end the dispute and it is no longer subject to being submitted for any other remedy on the above subject matter.”

​Following this agreement, the Claimant alleges they were immediately pressured into signing a three-month contract before resuming work, which the employer subsequently terminated in December 2023. This second, unfair termination led to the court case.

​The Court’s Final Decision

​The Gasabo High Court ruled in favor of the Claimant, finding that the employer’s actions—specifically introducing a three-month contract after the conciliation for a worker who had served over a year under a verbal contract, and then terminating them—constituted termination contrary to the law (unfair termination).

​The court ruling, dated October 9, 2025, ordered the employer to pay:

1. ​Damages for Unfair Termination: (3 months of salary, based on the maximum of 3 months’ pay for unfair termination under local law, as the judge did not have the power to exceed this).
2. ​Notice Pay: (1 month of salary in lieu of notice).
3. ​Flight Ticket: The court ordered the employer to pay for a flight ticket to the Claimant’s home country based on current prices at the time of execution.
4. ​Legal Costs: Court fees and lawyer’s fees amounting to F.

​The Missing Statutory Dues

​Crucially, the court’s decision did not explicitly address or award other statutory claims previously made by the employee in the initial labor complaint (such as annual leave indemnity, public holiday compensation, overtime, or RSSB/TPR contributions) which the Claimant refers to as “statutory dues.”

​The employer’s argument to the court was that the original conciliation report, signed in September 2023, constituted a full and final settlement, and by agreeing to get their job back in exchange for dropping other claims, the Claimant had effectively waived their right to all other statutory dues for the preceding year.

​Analysis: Can the Statutory Claim be Re-filed/Appealed?

​The question of whether the Claimant can appeal to recover the statutory dues hinges on two main legal principles:

​1. The Legal Standing of the Conciliation Report

​The employer’s defense rested on the conciliation report being a full waiver of all previous claims. However, the court implicitly recognized that the conciliation was immediately and fundamentally undermined by the employer’s subsequent fraudulent conduct (forcing the three-month contract). By ruling that the subsequent termination was illegal, the court essentially acknowledged that the spirit and good faith of the conciliation agreement were violated by the employer.

​However, the court’s judgment mainly focused on the damages arising from the second unfair termination (in December 2023), not the original statutory dues from the first employment period (July 2022 – July 2023).

​2. Mandatory Nature of Statutory Dues

​In most legal jurisdictions, statutory dues (like social security contributions and leave indemnities) are considered mandatory rights that an employee generally cannot waive, even through a signed agreement, particularly if that agreement was made under duress or misconception. If the conciliation report did not explicitly and item-by-item settle or pay these specific statutory components for the original period, the legal right to them often survives.

​Conclusion on Appeal

​Yes, the Claimant has grounds to appeal or seek clarification on the non-awarded statutory dues.

​The Claimant’s best course of action would be to appeal the specific point where the court did not award the full range of statutory dues (overtime, leave indemnity beyond the initial conciliation, and social security payments/TPR) from the first period of employment (up to July 2023).

​The argument should be:

• ​The original conciliation was voidable because the employer immediately acted in bad faith (the deceptive 3-month contract).
• ​Mandatory statutory rights (like social contributions,) for the period of July 2022 to July 2023 cannot be legally waived via a conciliation agreement, especially one entered into under duress and a false promise of a long-term job.
• ​The court ruled on the unfair termination, but not on the full back-payment of the mandatory rights accrued during the entire year of service.

​The legal process for appeal would allow a higher court to determine if the “Minutes of Total Conciliation” effectively extinguished the mandatory claims, or if the employer’s bad faith conduct voids that waiver, making the employer liable for the full statutory benefits of the previous 12 months.