The Labour Law between Text and Application: Comparison to Labour Laws in Arab and Foreign Countries
With support from the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, the Institute of Law (IoL) at Birzeit University organised on 16 November 2011 a legal encounter on the Labour Law between Text and Application: Comparison to Labour Laws in Arab and Foreign Countries. Delivered by Mr. Nayef Bseiso, a legal advisor, the encounter brought together a considerable number of lawyers in Gaza.
In her opening remarks, Mrs. Lina Al- Tounisi, Coordinator of the IoL Gaza Office, welcomed the speaker and audience. Mrs. Al-Tounisi highlighted the significance of mutual cooperation between the IoL and Palestinian Bar Association.
Mr. Bseiso first explained that the Palestinian Labour Law generally lacks a supporting executive power that safeguards and prioritises workers’ rights. In addition to the Palestinian society’s particularity and culture, relevant reasons include scarce resources, inadequate infrastructure networks, negative impacts on employers’ siege, and occupation.
Mr. Bseiso compared the Palestinian Labour Law to similar laws in Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Arabian Gulf states, and in foreign countries, namely England and Japan. He stated that certain provisions under the Palestinian Labour Law are defective and short. In relation to Article (1), Mr. Beseiso commented that a permanent medical committee, which comprises several competent, specialised physicians, is not in place around the year. Contrary to provision of Article (3), a decision or regulation on domestic workers has not been developed or issued forth yet. Pursuant to Article (17), the Ministry of Labour is responsible for regulating the labour market and employment of Palestinian workers abroad. However, neither the ministry nor any other body monitors or safeguards interests of Palestinian workers abroad.
Article (27) under the Palestinian Labour Law does not provide how an employment contract should be terminated, nor does it list the contract terms and conditions. It only prescribes that workers under fixed-term contracts will enjoy the same rights and duties of those working with unlimited contracts under similar circumstances. Mr. Bseiso wondered who has the right to assess such similar circumstances?
Article (41) under the said Law provides that “[t]he employer may terminate the employment contract for technical reasons or due to a loss that necessitates the reduction of the number of workers, provided that the worker maintains his or her right to a notice period reimbursement and end of service remuneration, on condition that the Ministry is notified thereof.” Mr. Bseiso stated that this Article is vague. Given the different nature of technical employment, this provision does not explain how “technical reasons” can be established, nor does it identify technical experts who are capable of determining them. Furthermore, it does show how, and by whom, “loss” is detected. According to Mr. Bseiso, if the objective is to reduce the number of employees, and consequently the amount of salaries paid, the payroll as a whole would better be reduced by, say, 20 percent. This was the case in the many financial crises we have seen.
In conclusion, Mr. Bseiso made some proposals and recommendations. In the first place, the Palestinian Labour Law should be reviewed to ensure clearer provisions as well as summary adjudication and execution. Since employers are in the powerful position, employees should be better protected. Employers should also be obliged to insure workers against work accidents.
In the ensuing discussion, lawyers made significant interventions and raised questions that reflected their awareness and interest in the topic. Mrs. Lina Al- Tounisi extended thanks and gratitude of both IoL and Birzeit University to the speaker and audience for their effective participation and debate in the legal encounter.
