Palestinian Workers Between the Misery of Work and the Length of Litigation

Author: Lawyer Ibrahim Dhweib

In light of the weakness of union organization, and the absence of effective frameworks capable of representing workers and defending their interests, the Palestinian worker finds himself trapped between a work reality that forces him to accept conditions that do not comply with the minimum of his rights as the weaker party in the employment relationship. This is not only related to his subjection to the legal and economic dependency on the employer, but also due to the often miserable working conditions, low wages, lack of occupational health and safety conditions, and the absence of social protection conditions and components.

Workers find themselves caught between the hammer of this poor reality during work and the anvil of prolonged litigation after the end of the employment relationship; and the non-payment of their rights resulting from their work period in compliance with the law, which forces them to resort to the judiciary to obtain them, and sometimes they do not approach it due to the frustration that has formed during their work period, and what they face during litigation due to the lengthy time and procedural delays. Although the principle should be that claims have a special nature based on facilitating litigation procedures and the actual free nature of labor lawsuits, not just as a theoretical title before the judiciary, the reality indicates the opposite. The litigation fees, which are a feature and characteristic of Palestinian labor law in its fourth article when it stipulated that workers be exempt from court fees in labor lawsuits they file due to disputes related to wages, or vacations, or end-of-service bonuses, or compensation for work injuries, or wrongful dismissal, is good and positive. However, this has not effectively facilitated litigation procedures in terms of filing lawsuits and the speed of litigation.

The text of the Labor Law in Article One stipulates the existence of a specialized court to consider labor disputes, yet despite many years since the enactment of the Palestinian Labor Law, it has not been established until now. The absence of a specialized labor court to facilitate litigation procedures has effectively emptied the issue of expeditiously addressing labor cases of its substance; as the majority of labor legislations in Arab countries have stipulated the necessity of swift resolution of labor cases, setting a time limit that a lawsuit should not exceed in judgment, and have established special labor courts to consider workers' cases, which is what the Palestinian Labor Law referred to in the definitions section. All of this is due to the special nature of labor lawsuits, which are linked to the worker's livelihood and their ability to secure the basic needs of the family as well. Despite the mention of this issue in the old labor laws that were applied in Palestine regarding the swift resolution of labor lawsuits, the Palestinian Labor Law No. 7 of 2000 came devoid of such texts and lacking a specified time frame for adjudicating lawsuits upon their submission to the judiciary, contrary to what was the case under the laws that were in effect in Palestine before the enforcement of the provisions of the Palestinian Labor Law, which should have been advanced over the old laws, yet it fell into this legislative flaw or legislative deficiency.

The amended Jordanian Labor Law No. 2 of 1965, which was applied in the Palestinian West Bank, set a maximum period of three months for resolving labor lawsuits starting from the date of their submission and registration at the competent court's registry, and also determined a period of ten days for appealing the decisions of the first-instance court, and required the Court of Appeal to also resolve the case within 15 days from the date of its submission; therefore, the absence of a provision in the Palestinian Labor Law No. 7 of 2000 that obliges judges to expedite the resolution of labor cases and sets a time limit for adjudicating them is a clear legislative deficiency that should be remedied through a system for the specialized labor court.

This shortcoming must be addressed by including a specific duration for litigation in labor cases, whether at the first instance or in other levels of litigation. It is known that labor cases are primarily supposed to be resolved amicably within the framework of reconciliation and arbitration procedures and resolving labor disputes through labor directorates, trade unions, and representatives of workers in their respective unions. Moreover, the Palestinian Labor Law lacks a clear provision for establishing a court specialized in labor cases or another judicial authority for urgent wage claims, leaving this to the general rules in the procedural law, as determined by the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law and the Law on the Formation of Regular Courts.

Although Article One of the Labor Law defined the competent court for labor cases, this remained within the theoretical framework of the definition, without following it up as a procedure to establish jurisdiction for considering labor cases. The consideration of these cases remains before the Peace and First Instance Courts, as the Law on the Formation of Courts did not include the establishment of a specialized labor court to consider labor cases. Due to the accumulation of labor cases, the Cabinet decided in 2011 to appoint a judge in each court specialized in labor cases. However, the absence of a provision in the Labor Law for expediting the resolution of labor claims or establishing specialized labor courts to adjudicate these types of claims and forming a judicial authority for wages is fundamentally a legislative deficiency that we all suffer from, especially workers and their representatives when considering their cases. This gap has opened the door wide for the exploitation of workers and their extortion due to the prolonged duration of litigation, which has manifested itself on the bodies of workers and their families, resulting from the delay in justice and fairness, which constitutes an injustice in itself.

To close this gap that is exploited by employers, and even by some lawyers representing employers who exploit these gaps to prolong the duration of litigation in practices that are inconsistent with the message of the legal profession, addressing this issue is not limited to the legislator or the judiciary alone. It requires a shared responsibility from various parties in the justice system. The lawyer, as a partner in achieving justice, bears the responsibility of adhering to attendance and follow-up, and any behavior contrary to this negatively reflects on the image of the profession and its noble message.

The long duration of litigation in labor disputes causes cases filed by workers to be inherited by their heirs; either they continue to pursue their ancestors' rights, or they entrust their matters to God, hoping for divine justice. Therefore, reforming the litigation system in labor disputes is no longer a luxury but has become a necessity imposed by the nature of the rights that require protection. The solution begins with bridging the gap between text and application by establishing a specialized labor judicial framework, setting clear and simplified procedures, determining reasonable deadlines for resolving cases at various levels of litigation, enhancing means of reconciliation, arbitration, and dispute resolution, and activating the role of trade unions and labor organizations, ensuring that workers have genuine and effective access to justice.

Workers need a justice system that enables them to obtain their rights at a time when those rights hold actual value. Justice that comes after the need for it has passed may be legally correct, but it remains deficient from a humanitarian and social perspective.