Will employers be required to provide housing for infiltrating workers and illegal residents?
A recent precedent ruling indicates that the answer may be yes, affecting the employment of at least tens of thousands of workers in Israel.
This is a ruling recently given by the registrar of the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court, Sima Kramer, who required a company that employed a Ukrainian worker who entered Israel as a tourist in 2017, to provide her with housing and pay the bulk of it.
The ruling was given even though Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit was supposed to give his opinion regarding the lawsuit because it is an issue with potential dramatic consequences for the economy.
Mandelblit delayed submitting the opinion, and after the second time requesting a postponement, was denied by the registrar, who ruled in favor of the employee.
The ruling was recently appealed.
Foreign workers in south Tel Aviv, in 2020, Photo: Coco
The employee, A., was employed by Dhaka Hotels Ltd. - a placement company for employees in the tourism, industry and trade industries. According to the employee, her status is that of a foreign worker and the company charged her excess payments for accommodation. , Submitted an application for recognition as an asylum seeker, thereby proving A.'s intention to settle in Israel, and indeed lived in Israel throughout the proceedings, including during the corona period in which she did not work and lived, among other things, from money sent to her from Ukraine.
During her employment period, in the years 2019-2017, Dhaka made available to A. a residence in Herzliya, near the workplace, and A. gave her consent that she would be charged an amount of NIS 1,000 per month for the living expenses, as well as the related expenses.
It should be noted that other employees in the company chose not to live in the apartment provided by them, but to find an independent place to live, a fact that proves that A. enjoyed choosing whether to use the company to find housing.
Despite all this, A.'s claim was accepted by the Labor Court, which ordered the company to pay about NIS 40,000.
The Kramer Registry stated that although A. is an "asylum seeker" who intends to settle in Israel and not just work to return to her homeland in the future, she is in fact a foreign worker, and therefore the housing regulations and the limit on the amount an employer can deduct from salary apply to her employment.
The Labor Court in effect completely eliminates the distinction between a legally employed foreign worker and an illegal worker. The court registry also argued that infiltrating workers and "asylum seekers" should enjoy greater privileges from foreign workers who arrived legally, and even from Israeli workers. "If foreign workers with a permit need the protection of the legislature on the issue of residence due to their vulnerability," the ruling reads, "it is clear that this rationale exists among foreign workers seeking asylum, and even more so." The appeal argued that the statement "indicates a lack of understanding of the purpose of the Foreign Workers Law" by the registry, and that the message is that "an employee who fraudulently enters Israel will be entitled to a place of residence by his employer - a right not granted to a citizen."
The consequences, as stated, should be dramatic, in a way that will hurt both employers and foreign workers: "Decent employers, who have assisted workers to date in providing accommodation (beyond what is required by law) will not continue to do so, ".
It was further argued that the ruling of the Honorable Court, according to which the Foreign Workers Law applies to asylum seekers and infiltrators, "will encourage many workers to come to Israel by deception, while receiving privileges, and will oblige employers in the economy to provide accommodation for these workers."
The appeal also seeks the opinion of the Attorney General, which, as stated, was not submitted as part of the procedure - despite the agreement of all parties in its necessity.
Advocate Naama Shabtai Bachar, who represents Dhaka, said: "To expect a manpower company to house hundreds of workers, and finance most of the costs, is absurd.
Companies will be dissolved due to housing expenses. "
Attorney Oleg Selbutsky, representing A., stated: "This is a correct and just verdict, which prevents the continued exploitation of vulnerable employees who are deprived of their rights."