Fourth Court Ruling in Three Months Orders El Hennawy Tobacco Company to Pay Over EGP 200,000 in Compensation for Arbitrary Dismissal of Worker

On April 27, 2025, the North Damanhour Primary Court issued a new judgment ordering El Hennawy Company for Tobacco and Molasses to compensate a female worker with over EGP 200,000 for her arbitrary termination. The ruling also awarded compensation in lieu of the notice period and accrued leave entitlements, in addition to statutory interest at a rate of 4% on these sums from the date of the judgment until full payment is made.

This latest ruling, issued in favor of worker Manal M. A., marks the fourth such decision against El Hennawy Company since January 28, 2025. Three previous judgments awarded nearly EGP 652,000 in total compensation to three other female workers for their arbitrary dismissal, including entitlements for the notice period and accrued leave, with 4% statutory interest from the date of each ruling until full settlement.

The facts of the case date back to the company’s arbitrary decision to bar the workers from entering the workplace following their refusal to comply with a management directive to relocate the factory from Damanhour to Borg El Arab. This directive was issued despite a court order prohibiting the relocation, and was perceived as a strategy to force workers out by making the new worksite excessively distant from their residences, effectively pressuring them to resign.

Subsequently, the affected workers pursued legal action to claim their statutory rights, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal, entitlement to special allowances, enforcement of the minimum wage, payment for unused leave, damages for loss of employment, and reinstatement to their former positions.

During the proceedings, Mohamed Mamdouh El-Demiaty—attorney at the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) and legal representative of the workers—together with the Shawarebi Law Office, submitted a defense memorandum supported by official documentation. These included government decrees on minimum wage and special allowances, official complaints filed against the company for non-compliance, and a prior judgment from the Alexandria Court of Appeal prohibiting the relocation of workers to Borg El Arab.

Moreover, the defense team contested documents submitted by the company, including a request for exemption from minimum wage obligations filed with the Federation of Egyptian Industries, vacation records that allegedly proved the workers had exhausted their leave entitlements, and a previous ruling by the Alexandria Primary Court in a similar case. However, the plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the two cases were not legally identical in subject matter or facts.

Relying on an expert report from the Damanhour Office of Forensic Experts, which confirmed the validity of the financial claims, the court issued its rulings. The ECESR further requested that any compensation awarded comply with the minimum wage regulations, though the court did not incorporate this criterion explicitly in its decisions.

While the ECESR welcomed the rulings as a legal victory affirming the judiciary’s commitment to protecting labor rights and holding employers accountable under labor law—especially with regard to wages and statutory entitlements—it also announced its intention to file appeals, continuing to seek compensation in accordance with minimum wage regulations in light of the ongoing economic conditions.

The ECESR and the Shawarebi Law Office represent a total of 29 female workers from the factory in lawsuits concerning their arbitrary dismissal, which the company alleged was due to absenteeism following the workers’ refusal to transfer to the Borg El Arab location.

The El Hennawy workers’ dispute dates back more than 21 years, beginning in 2003, when they began demanding their right to statutory bonuses, objecting to extended working hours, forced workforce reductions, and denial of childcare leave. Following their rejection of a rights-violating agreement signed between the union committee and the employer, management began retaliating by arbitrarily dismissing some workers and relocating others far from their homes to coerce their resignation. This pattern has continued in recent years, recurring after each court ruling in favor of reinstating the workers.