Employers undeterred: negligible enforcement 

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labour (MITL) Migrant Worker Unit is clearly failing in its main task of deterring employers from illegal actions and enforcing worker rights. In the three main sectors, care-giving, construction and agriculture, the number of complaints 

Kav LaOved has forwarded to MITL increased in 2007-8. Despite the obvious fact that cancelling employers’ migrant worker employment permits is the most effective deterrent, the number of migrant worker placement and construction company permit cancellations is still negligible. Other means, such as court action and administrative fines, are not applied at all.
No enforcement against serial wage withholders 

The care-giving industry is notorious for withholding pay. Some employers take on short-term caregivers with no intention of paying them at all. The abundance of workers in the industry and lack of enforcement on the part of the authorities allow employers to withhold pay routinely. Kav LaOved has handled 275 cases of withheld pay in 2008 alone. 

It seems that fighting withheld pay is not among the Enforcement Department’s priorities. Apart from being a clear violation of the Minimum Wage Law, most of the employees are migrant workers, cut off from their families and dependant on their income for their livelihood and for repaying exorbitant broker’s fees. So far, we have no information regarding fines imposed on employers or regarding administrative sanctions, such as cancelling or restricting permits.
Permits of delinquent employers not withheld 

Migrant workers employment permits, which allow migrant workers to be legally employed, are exploited for extorting money from workers, for making them work for other family members, for forced sexual relations and for other violations. 

In 2007, the Administrative Enforcement Commissioner (currently Mr. Avishai Amosi) was sent 68 serious complaints with affidavits. The Commissioner was asked to use his authority under Section 1, 15 of the Foreign Worker Law, authorising him to cancel migrant worker employment permits. However, employers’ permits were cancelled only in nine cases. Of the 30 serious complaints submitted so far in 2008 we know of only four employer permit cancellations. 

It is most disconcerting to discover that Mr. Amosi’s favourite sanction is that of restricting employer permits to workers already residing in Israel, as occurred in 10 of the 23 cases he handled between January and June 2008. As things stand, with supply outstripping demand (official figures show there to be a surfeit of 10,000 caregivers), this sanction is meaningless and serves as no deterrent whatsoever to delinquent employers. 

The Farcical “Corporations Arrangement” 

In the construction industry, despite the “Corporations Arrangement” which was supposed to have protected workers and enhanced their rights, 120 complaints have been received in 2008 against 70% of the migrant construction worker placement corporations for, among other things, withheld pay, unlawful dismissal and falsely reporting workers as ‘escapees’. Not a single migrant construction workers placement corporation has had its employer permit withdrawn to date. 

Information withheld 

Apart from a few isolated cases, mainly with the Enforcement Department in Northern and Southern Israel, updates regarding MITL complaint handling, outcome and status have not reached Kav LaOved. In 2008, we sent dozens of complaints against migrant worker placement companies to Ms. Rivka Makover (in charge of licensing placement companies), against caregiver and agricultural employers to Administrative Enforcement Commissioner Mr. Avishai Amosi, and against construction corporations, caregiver employers and others to Migrant Worker Rights Commissioner Advocate Iris Maayan – in all, some 100 complaints. Apart from some isolated instances, the complaints have not been acknowledged nor have any status reports or results been received. Updates from Advocate Iris Maayan were received following follow-up calls by Kav LaOved. All the complaints were said to be ‘under investigation’. 

At a meeting with Mr. Avishai Amosi in the presence of Advocate Shoshanna Strauss and Advocate Brenner-Naor at the Legal Department on 4 June 2008, it was agreed that Mr Amosi would routinely report to Kav LaOved regarding the results of hearings held with employers in cases where Kav LaOved had filed complaints. Up to the time of writing, not a single update has been received from Mr. Amosi, despite repeated requests for updates. This is in contravention of the Migrant Worker Employer Permit Cancellation Procedure of 15 May 2005 which, in section 6.5 states that “a notice shall be sent to the complainant, his representative or to whosoever submitted a complaint on his behalf, respectively”. 

From consultation with the workers, whom we directed to submit complaints to the MITL, and who met Advocate Iris Ma’ayan, it appears they received no written statement acknowledging that a complaint had been lodged, neither were they informed of the results of their complaint nor afforded an opportunity to discover what developments had taken place. 

Access denied to migrant workers 

The MITL cannot deal with migrant worker complaints since none of its departments employ translators. The MITL is simply unable to communicate with migrant construction and agricultural workers, most of whom speak only Chinese or Thai. A similar situation exists for caregivers from India and Sri Lanka who cannot communicate in English or Hebrew. 

The implications of this are particularly detrimental to MITL enforcement efforts in the moshavim (agricultural villages) and kibbutzim employing Thai workers. Given the inability to communicate with the workers the employer’s side of a dispute is usually the one heard, and the workers are only heard when the inspectors are accompanied by Kav LaOved’s Thai speaking volunteer interpreters. On 4 June 2008, at a foreign workers’ Knesset committee meeting on the subject of enforcing agriculture labour laws a resolution was passed to take on a Thai interpreter for inspection visits. However, at the time of writing, no change has occurred.
The job description of MITL Migrant Workers’ Rights Commissioner Advocate Iris Ma’ayan is to receive complaints from workers regarding the violation of their rights, but without translators she cannot collect them. Kav LaOved has become the Commissioner’s translation unit and her data collection agency. The need for translation resources is well known within the system, but to date the Commissioner’s office employs none. 

Fears of leaks to employers 

The lack of enforcement in the agricultural sector deters workers from lodging complaints. According to a great many workers MITL leaks render the unit’s work worthless. Workers have often said that when a complaint is submitted to the enforcement unit, a manpower company translator turns up a few days before the inspection and issues threats to the workers. In other cases the investigators synchronise the meeting in advance with the employers. In cases where the inspection is not confidential and where workers’ names are disclosed to employers, workers are not protected after lodging a complaint, and are usually dismissed or transferred by way of punishment. 

In addition, agricultural workers complaining against their employers are dismissed following MITL intervention, and they cannot find alternative employment without the help of the authorities. Since the MITL does not coordinate alternative employment search for dismissed workers with the Interior Ministry, workers will be deterred from complaining. 

Inadequate inter-departmental work regulations 

The division of authority regarding construction workers between the MITL and the Interior Ministry is unclear. The MITL and the Interior Ministry pass complaints back and forth regarding construction workers who have suffered unwarranted dismissal or were falsely reported as “escapees”, with no-one assuming responsibility for settling the worker’s status. 

On 16 July 2008, an application was submitted on this matter to Messrs. Ganot and Barazani with copies to Advocates Strauss and Salomon. By the time of writing no MITL response has been received. Senior Coordinator for public complaints Ms. Deganit Sami replied for the Interior Ministry that registering migrant workers is the responsibility of the MITL, not the Interior Ministry. Despite this, Migrant Worker Rights Commissioner Advocate Iris Maayan consistently repeats the claim that renewing migrant workers work permits and/or residence permits is performed by the Interior Ministry and not by the MITL.