Moonlighting

What moonlighting is

Moonlighting (العمل لدى الغير) is work that an employee performs for another employer, or for their own account, while still employed by their original employer. In the Saudi Labor Law (نظام العمل) moonlighting is a matter of statute, not a matter of policy set by the establishment: an article of the Labor Law is dedicated to it.

That placement shapes how the term is handled in practice. An organisation can write rules on outside work into its internal documents, and a conflict of interest policy may cover outside work that competes with the employee’s role or falls within its field, as described under conflict of interest. Those documents sit beside the statutory rule and do not replace it.

Moonlighting under Article 39 of the Labor Law

Article 39 of the Labor Law, as amended by Royal Decree M/24 dated 12/5/1434H and then by Royal Decree M/44 dated 8/2/1446H, provides in substance that, without following the established statutory rules and procedures:

• an employer may not leave its worker to work for others or to work for their own account;
• a worker may not work for another employer or for their own account; and
• an employer may not employ another employer’s worker.

So Article 39 of the Labor Law carries three prohibitions, not one, and each is addressed to a different party: the original employer, who may not let its worker go; the worker, who may not go; and a third employer, who may not take on someone else’s worker. Reducing the article to “an employee may not work for another organisation” keeps one of the three parties and drops the other two.

The difference matters when a case arises. If only the worker’s limb is remembered, the original employer can assume that the breach is the employee’s alone, and the employer who took the worker on can assume that the question does not concern it. Neither assumption is supported by the text of Article 39 of the Labor Law.

The qualifying clause that frames the moonlighting prohibitions

The words “without following the established statutory rules and procedures” (بغير اتباع القواعد والإجراءات النظامية المقررة) open Article 39 of the Labor Law, and they govern all three prohibitions. Article 39 of the Labor Law does not impose an absolute ban; it requires that the route to such work be a statutory one, and a party that takes any other route is in breach. Dropping the clause turns the provision into a prohibition with no way through, which is not what Article 39 of the Labor Law says.

Two of those procedures are set out in the Implementing Regulation (اللائحة التنفيذية).

• Article 13 of the Implementing Regulation. It provides that, in applying Article 39 of the Labor Law, a worker who is not a Saudi national and whose work the Ministry approves through the procedures of the Ajeer programme (أجير) is not regarded as in breach of that article. Ajeer and the arrangements it governs are described under contingent workforce. The provision speaks of the worker, and it carries two conditions: the worker is not a Saudi national, and the Ministry has approved the work through the programme’s procedures.
• Article 14 of the Implementing Regulation. Under paragraph 18 of item Second of Article 14 of the Implementing Regulation, where the transfer of the services of a worker who is not a Saudi national is not approved in any of the cases set out in paragraph 7 of the same item, the Minister or his delegate may license the worker to work for another employer, and the Ministry sets the controls and the duration of that licence.

Neither route is a general permission. Each is tied to a defined case and to an approval or a licence from the Ministry, which is the point the qualifying clause makes: the way to such work runs through a statutory procedure.

How moonlighting affects the transfer of services

Paragraph 4 of item Second of Article 14 of the Implementing Regulation adds a consequence that reaches beyond a fine. Services may not be transferred to an employer found to have a collective delay in paying wages, or proven commercial concealment (التستر التجاري), or to have left all or some of its workers to work for others irregularly or to work for their own account.

So when an establishment has left its workers to work for others irregularly, the breach does not end with an administrative decision that is paid and closed. It closes a door the establishment needs when it wants to bring in someone it intends to hire through a transfer of services, and that makes moonlighting an operational question before it is a compliance question. The conditions and steps on the receiving side are covered in our guide to transferring expat worker services.

Moonlighting fines in the Schedule of Violations and Penalties

The Schedule of Violations and Penalties, issued by Ministerial Decision No. 112377 dated 21/8/1447H (9 February 2026), classifies an establishment leaving its worker to work for others or to work for their own account as a serious violation (جسيمة). The fine is:

• SAR 10,000 for an establishment with 20 workers or fewer;
• SAR 15,000 for an establishment with 21 to 49 workers; and
• SAR 20,000 for an establishment with 50 workers or more.

The fine is multiplied by the number of cases. The establishment’s size band is set by the total number of its workers registered with the Ministry against the unified number (الرقم الموحد) to which it belongs. How the Schedule is organised is set out under Schedule of Violations and Penalties.

Next to that violation, the Schedule lists employing another establishment’s worker without an Ajeer notice. It is also classed as serious, carries the same three figures in the same three bands, and is likewise multiplied by the number of cases. The two violations are the two sides of one set of facts: the establishment that lets its worker go, and the establishment that takes the worker on.

Moonlighting and the same phrase in Article 160 of the Labor Law

The phrase «لدى الغير», “for others”, appears elsewhere in the Labor Law, in a provision unrelated to moonlighting. Article 160 of the Labor Law, on iddah leave (إجازة العدة), provides that in all cases a female worker whose husband has died may not carry on any work for others during that period. There, the phrase is a restriction on the worker during leave to which she is entitled; in Article 39 of the Labor Law it describes a set of facts that breaches the rules on employment.

The words are the same and the two provisions do different things, so carrying the rule of one across to the other misplaces the whole question. Iddah leave is covered in our guide to dismissal protection and iddah leave.

How moonlighting differs from a noncompete agreement and a change of profession

• A noncompete agreement. It restricts work after the employment relationship ends, whereas moonlighting is other work during the relationship. A restriction after the end rests on Article 83 of the Labor Law and its conditions: where the work lets the worker know the employer’s clients, the employer may, to protect its legitimate interests, require the worker not to compete after the contract ends, and the clause must be in writing, defined as to time, place and type of work, and may not exceed two years from the end of the relationship. Relying on Article 83 of the Labor Law for facts that arise while the contract is running applies an article whose subject is the period after the contract.
• A change of profession. It concerns the profession, not the employer, although the two can meet in a single set of facts. Article 38 of the Labor Law provides that an employer may not employ a worker in a profession other than the one recorded in the worker’s work permit, and prohibits the worker from working outside their profession before the statutory procedures for changing the profession have been taken.

The provisions relied on are those of the Saudi Labor Law as published by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development: Article 38 (the permit profession), Article 39 (the three prohibitions and the qualifying clause), Article 83 (the restriction after the contract ends) and Article 160 (iddah leave). Royal Decree M/44 of 1446H amended Article 39 of the Labor Law. That decree did not amend Articles 38 and 83 of the Labor Law. From the Implementing Regulation, the provisions relied on are Article 13 (work approved through Ajeer) and Article 14, paragraphs 4 and 18 of item Second (the transfer bar and the licence to work for another employer). The fines are those of the Schedule of Violations and Penalties, Ministerial Decision No. 112377.

Questions to settle before treating a case as moonlighting

Taken together, the provisions above give an organisation three questions to answer before it labels a case. Whose worker is involved: its own, or another establishment’s? Was the work routed through a statutory procedure, such as approval through Ajeer or a licence from the Ministry? And does the work take place during the employment relationship, or after it has ended?

The answers point to which provision applies and which party, if any, may be in breach. They also show whether the matter is moonlighting at all, or a question of profession, or of a restriction that begins only once the contract is over.

This is an explanation of the concept and of the statutory provisions cited, not legal advice.