Gaza – a Workforce Disappeared

In March 2008, before the recent devastating war on Gaza, a coalition of international human rights and development organisations concluded that “the blockade has effectively dismantled the economy and impoverished the population of Gaza. […] 95 % of Gaza’s industrial operations are suspended because they cannot access inputs for production nor can they export what they produce.” Moreover, “in September 2000, some 24,000 Palestinians crossed out of Gaza every day to work in Israel. Today, that figure is zero.” (Amnesty International, Christian Aid, Cafod, Care, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam UK, Save the Children UK, Trocaire, The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion, March 2008).

Ever since the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel has controlled the local economy and its working people as a captive market and source of cheap labour. Before second intifada, disengagement and closure, most of Gaza’s economic activity – import, export and labour - was dependent on Israel. Consequently, today, with Gaza under siege, economic activity – apart from clandestine activities - is virtually down to zero. In the early 2000s, thousands of workers from Gaza worked in the settlements, the Israel-controlled Erez industrial zone and inside Israel. Since April 2004, also this number is down to zero.

Moreover, hardly any worker has received compensation for lost employment or social-security entitlements such as severance pay and social insurance benefits. And while they were working for Israeli employers, most workers from Gaza were paid far below the minimum wage. Today, the Gazan workforce is trapped inside Gaza, unemployed and dependent on foreign aid.

In 2008, Sawt el-Amel launched a solidarity project for people from Gaza who used to work for Israeli employers and who lost their jobs due to closure and disengagement. Until today, almost 500 workers have contacted Sawt el-Amel’s legal aid clinic. In accordance with Israeli labour law, the workers whose cases Sawt el-Amel’s lawyers investigated are entitled to an average of USD 20,000 from their former employers. The amount comprises compensation for salaries below the minimum wage, unpaid overtime and severance pay.

Legal Background – Space for Cautious Optimism

1) Legal precedent: High Court of Justice case no. 5666/03

Several workers employed by the local authority of the Israeli West Bank settlement of Givat Ze'ev, represented by the organisation Kav LaOved (Workers’ Hotline), sued their employer and asked the court to rule that they are entitled to social benefits and minimum wage according to Israeli law. The question of applicability of the Jordanian or Israeli law to Palestinians employed by Israelis in the West Bank had been deliberated by Israeli courts since 1994.

In October 2007, the High Court of Justice ruled unanimously that Palestinians working in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank must be employed under Israeli law. The court argued that an affinity test (the language of the work contract, the currency of payment, the language of attendance registration, the holiday schedule) sets the legal framework. The court further determined that applying different laws to workers in the same workplace simply because of their different nationalities is unjust and discriminatory.

2) Related case: Beer Sheva Labour Court case Eshkuntanna v Ozrum, no. 2142/06

88 workers from Gaza sued their employer situated in the Erez industrial zone for compensation for lost benefits after they had lost access to their workplace. Two main questions were addressed in this case: a) which law does apply to workers from Gaza, and b) are the workers entitled to compensation even though they were not fired?

The decision, delivered in February 2008, was generally in favour of the workers, arguing that

Israeli law applies to Gazan workers;

 

The closure of Gaza was “hermetic” and thus the question of a possible issuance of work permits did not arise;

 

The workers are entitled to compensation by the employer even though the closure was a government decision and not a decision made by the employer (as applies in cases of bankruptcy or outsourcing).

However, this decision has been appealed; a final decision is currently pending.